Apply a reviewed Open Figure Modules pull request

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

Annotations already establish write/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: which preconditions are re-validated (GitHub identity, module path collisions, similar-search confirmation, file identities), the mechanism (two-commit PR via Git Data API), and the hard guarantee that it never merges. That is real value on top of the structured hints.

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?

A single dense sentence with preconditions front-loaded before the action and the 'Never merges' caveat trailing. Every clause carries information, though the pile-up of nouns makes it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 no output schema, the description conveys the important workflow and safety story well, but it leaves three of four parameters undefined and gives no returned-result expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at 'similar-search confirmation' (similarReviewConfirmed) but says nothing about planDigest, operationId, or expectedResultSetId — the two required params are completely unelaborated, which is a significant gap for a low-coverage 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 states a specific action (create a two-commit PR) on a specific resource (Open Figure Modules), and 'Never merges' distinguishes it from merge-oriented siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though the dense jargon of the precondition list slightly muddies the headline purpose.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'reviewed' qualifier and by pairing with the sibling figure_library_plan_open_figure_module_pr, but the description never explicitly says to run the plan tool first or when-not to use this tool. No alternative is named, so the agent must infer the plan-then-apply workflow from naming alone.

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