merge_pr

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

The description explicitly states that the tool is tagged destructiveHint=True because it changes repository history and closes the pull request. This adds behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. No contradictions.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no unnecessary words. 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 presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers the endpoint, destructive nature, parameter behavior, and closes the pull request.

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%, and the description only briefly mentions merge strategy and optional commit-message overrides, adding little meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Merge a pull request' and explains it calls the GitHub API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pr or add_comment_on_pr.

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 mentions using merge strategies and optional commit-message overrides but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to rebase or squash. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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