create_pr

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds concrete error conditions and the return object, but does not contradict annotations. It could disclose more about side effects like triggering CI, but the openWorldHint already implies external effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return value and error conditions. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, 5 required, output schema present), the description sufficiently covers return values and error handling. It does not need to repeat output schema details or annotations, and the context is complete for agent use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra info, e.g., noting same-repo only for head and Markdown format for body, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Open a new pull request from head into base,' specifying the action (open) and resource (pull request). It differentiates from sibling tools like merge_pr and list_pull_requests, and explicitly mentions same-repo only, distinguishing from potential cross-fork PR creation.

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 explains the tool's purpose and lists error conditions (head branch doesn't exist, no commits, existing open PR) that indicate when not to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear that this is the only PR creation tool.

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