ado_create_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Creates', which is obvious from the name. It does not mention side effects (e.g., notifications triggered), required permissions, or what happens on failure (e.g., conflict handling). The description adds minimal behavioral insight.

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 very short (4 words), which is concise but lacks structure and detail. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place fully because it only rephrases the tool name. A slightly more informative description would improve structure without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. Missing information includes the return value (e.g., pull request ID), required relationships between parameters, and an example. The description does not cover the operational context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description 'Crea un nuevo Pull Request' does not add any new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already sufficiently documents parameters.

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 'Crea un nuevo Pull Request' clearly states the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ado_abandon_pull_request or ado_list_pull_requests. However, it could be slightly more specific to differentiate from other creation tools like ado_create_pull_request_thread.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing valid source and target branches or repository existence. The description offers no context for appropriate usage.

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