create_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool creates a pull request and mentions required parameters, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., triggering CI), permissions needed, or that the branches must exist. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives usage triggers and required parameters. Fully front-loaded, zero wasted words, and structured for quick parsing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the core required inputs. It omits return value and error behavior, but given the simplicity of the operation and the rich schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by grouping head and base as 'rama origen' and 'rama destino', but it does not provide meaning beyond the schema's already-complete field descriptions.

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 clearly opens with 'Abre un pull request' (opens a pull request), specifying the verb, resource (pull request), and scope (between two branches in a GitHub repo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_issue or create_commit.

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 lists user intents that should trigger this tool ('hacer un PR', 'crear un pull request', 'fusionar cambios de una rama a otra'), which is clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion, stopping short of full 5.

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