ado_update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'updates properties' but doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, side effects (e.g., does updating description notify reviewers?), or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and lists the key properties. There is no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for purpose and parameters).

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., updated PR object). It also doesn't clarify whether repositoryId is required in practice (optional in schema but likely essential). The description is too minimal given the tool's complexity and lack of other documentation.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the tool description's summary adds minimal extra meaning. The description lists the three main parameters but doesn't add constraints or formatting details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it updates Pull Request properties and lists title, description, and draft status. This distinguishes it from other PR tools like ado_abandon_pull_request (changes state) or ado_create_pull_request (creates new PR). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ado_update_work_item, which is a different resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it doesn't mention that for changing PR state (abandon, complete) other tools should be used. Given many sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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