Open a PR for a ticket's branch

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

Annotations provide non-destructive and open-world hints. The description adds rich behavioral details: uses gh CLI or falls back to a compare URL, conditionally pushes the branch (only when git mode is commit-push), and never throws errors (returns opened:false with reason). This far exceeds what annotations convey.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the main action and then layers conditions and guarantees. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description covers common scenarios (gh available, push needed, error handling) and explains when it returns a URL vs. opens directly. It could be slightly more explicit about the success return structure, but overall it's quite complete for the complexity.

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 50% with 'ticket' and 'project' lacking descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining how ticket and project are used to form branch names and locate the repo, and how base and draft affect behavior. While not parameter-by-parameter, it compensates well for the gaps.

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 'Turn a ticket's pushed ticket/<id> branch into a pull request', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_worktree and commit_feature by positioning as the last step in the worktree→review loop.

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?

It explicitly places the tool in a sequence ('after create_worktree + commit_feature') and explains fallback behavior when gh CLI is missing. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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