github_create_pull_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context. It does: it mentions creating an 'external PR,' appending a 'git_reference evidence record,' and reassuring 'never merges it.' This adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with zero redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, the usage condition is placed early, and the side-effect clarification (never merges) is concise. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse for an agent.

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?

For a write tool with 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use, permission constraints, and post-conditions (creates PR, appends evidence). It omits a return format, but without an output schema that is not strictly required. Preconditions like allowed repositories are handled in the schema. Overall, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by linking 'repair branch' to the head parameter and 'maintenance run' to runId, but these are already implied by the schema descriptions. No significant additional semantic value is provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Create a GitHub pull request from an existing repair branch.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling merge tool by explicitly saying 'never merges it,' making its role unambiguous in the toolset.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('Use only after the patch and focused verification are complete') and sets expectations about the permission level ('highest automatic repository write allowed by pull_request_only'). It implicitly excludes merging by stating 'never merges it,' but it does not explicitly name the merge alternative as a separate tool, leaving a small gap in exclusions.

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