Mooring

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it notes default values (base=main), it omits critical mutation-related context: error conditions (e.g., duplicate PRs), idempotency characteristics, authentication requirements, and side effects of the creation operation.

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 appropriately sized with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a structured Args section. There is minimal waste, though the Args formatting is slightly unconventional for natural language processing.

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?

While all parameters are documented and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description lacks behavioral context expected for a mutation tool with no safety annotations. Prerequisites and side effects remain undocumented.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by documenting all 7 parameters in the Args block, adding crucial semantics like 'owner/name format' for repo and clarifying that head/base refer to branch names. This provides the meaning entirely missing from the schema titles.

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 'Create a pull request,' providing a clear, specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like gh_pr_detail or gh_pr_list, which could confuse an agent about whether this tool retrieves or creates PRs.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gh_pr_list for finding existing PRs), nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring the head branch to exist on the remote repository before invocation.

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