preview_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 behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'issue a token bound to the exact final payload' which hints at side effects (token creation/consumption), but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only preview operation or one with state-changing side effects, what the token is used for, or whether it expires.

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?

One concise sentence, zero filler. Every word adds meaning. This is appropriately minimal given the tool's purpose.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but an output schema present. The description does not explain the return value, what 'token' means, how it's consumed, or the relationship between preview and actual PR creation. The output schema may help, but the description alone leaves the tool's contract underspecified for the parameter count.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for ten undocumented parameters. While it doesn't document individual parameters, it clarifies the overall intent ('preview' + 'token bound to exact final payload') which explains what parameters collectively produce. With 0% coverage, any added meaning is valuable, though per-parameter detail is absent.

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 verb 'Preview' plus resource 'a pull request' is specific, and the description adds unique context about issuing a token bound to the final payload, distinguishing it conceptually from sibling tools like get_pull_request and list_pull_requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from preview_pull_request_comment or build_basecamp_pr_update.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives is provided. There's no mention of when previewing is appropriate, whether this should be used before creating a PR, or how it differs from other preview_* sibling tools. The token-binding mention hints at a specific use case but doesn't articulate it.

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