update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., changing status to 'completed' might trigger a merge), authorization requirements, or whether notifications are sent. This is a critical gap 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 merely repeats the tool name. It is under-specified and does not earn its place; it could be expanded with key details like the modifiable fields or constraints.

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?

With 5 parameters (2 with enums) and no output schema, the description should provide context on how to use the tool effectively. It omits important details like the implications of status changes or the optionality of parameters beyond what the schema says.

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 100% with each parameter having a clear description ('New title (optional)', etc.). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 'Update an existing pull request' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (pull request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_pull_request' (create vs update) and 'list_pull_requests' (list vs update). However, it could be more specific about which fields can be updated.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., when to use 'list_pull_requests' instead) or any prerequisites (e.g., the pull request must exist). No when-not-to-use information is given.

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