create_pull_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only restates the basic creation action. It does not mention write-permission requirements, response format, or edge cases (e.g., duplicate PRs, head==base). The docs link is a pointer to information, not disclosure itself.

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, front-loaded sentence plus a docs link. Every element earns its place, and the core purpose is immediately visible.

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 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description remains minimal: one sentence and a link. It omits behavioral context like return values or prerequisites, but the rich schema and official docs partially compensate. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters (owner, repo, head, base, title, body, draft, issue, maintainer_can_modify). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a new pull request') with a specific verb and resource, situated in a GitHub repository context. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_pull_request or merge_pull_request, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The docs link adds authoritative support.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_pull_request or create_pull_request_review. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based recommendations included. The docs link hints at deeper detail, but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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