create_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that a pull request is created, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., CI triggers, branch requirements), permissions needed, or failure conditions. This is minimal transparency for a mutating action.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the primary action. However, it is extremely terse and omits potentially useful context, so it is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain required inputs, return value, or any operational nuances. The schema provides some parameter descriptions, but the overall tool context is under-specified.

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 coverage is 57%, with 4 of 7 parameters described. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters (owner, repo, title). It neither explains their purpose nor provides any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already has.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('pull request') and location ('in a repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_pull_request and merge_pull_request. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Create' and the sibling naming, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_pull_request, merge_pull_request). No contexts or exclusions are described.

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