Creates a GitHub branch and pull request from reviewed contribution changed files once confirm=true, enabling controlled publication of approved changes.
Review the changedFiles from ads_github_contribution_status, then create one GitHub branch and pull request after confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| confirm | Yes | Set true only after reviewing the complete changedFiles list and approving publication. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a mutating publish step creating exactly one branch and PR, gated behind confirm=true. It omits permissions/auth needs, whether the branch or PR is created idempotently, what happens on partial failure, and what is returned.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the prerequisite, then the action, then the gating condition; no filler.
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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema write tool the description covers the essential workflow and safety gate, though it leaves permission requirements and the meaning of title/body unexplained.
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 only 33% — only `confirm` is documented in the schema, while `title` and `body` are bare strings with maxLength limits. The description compensates for neither, never explaining what title/body populate in the PR or how they are derived.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('create one GitHub branch and pull request') and frames the prerequisite sibling ads_github_contribution_status, so it is unmistakable versus status/setup siblings in the same family.
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?
Explicitly sequences the workflow: review changedFiles from ads_github_contribution_status first, then call this only with confirm=true. It gives clear context but never states exclusions or what to do instead if the review is rejected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.