sassy_ghq_pr

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool is mutating, creates immediately, has no draft mode, returns the created PR as JSON, and requires a GitHub token. The annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context that an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then covers required parameters, optional body, token requirement, immediate creation behavior, and alternatives in a compact, organized way. No sentence is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a pull request creation tool, this description covers the action, required and optional parameters, output format, authentication, behavioral caveats, and when to choose sibling tools. With annotations and an output schema also present, the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify head as 'source branch containing your commits,' base as 'target branch the PR merges into,' and body's default empty string. Owner, repo, and title are not elaborately described, but their standard meaning is reasonably inferable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'creates a pull request.' It also differentiates this tool from related alternatives like sassy_gh_create_pr and sassy_combo_pr_review, so an agent can clearly identify which tool is which.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'The tool itself creates immediately with no draft mode; for draft PRs or more control use ... sassy_gh_create_pr' and 'To review an existing PR end-to-end ... use sassy_combo_pr_review.' It also lists required inputs and the token requirement, leaving little ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.