Apply a reviewed staged central publication pull request

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

Annotations already mark it as a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations by disclosing that it re-checks gh account, permissions, source, merge gate, base, and file identities, and that it never merges the PR. No contradiction exists.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the critical non-goal 'never merges' is stated explicitly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main outcome and a key boundary, but for a mutating GitHub PR operation with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, it leaves the meaning of planDigest/operationId, failure states, and return behavior unexplained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain planDigest and operationId, but it never mentions either parameter. An agent cannot learn from this description what value to pass for those two required fields.

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 names a concrete action (re-check, then create branch/commit/PR), specifies the resource (a reviewed staged central publication pull request), and adds an exclusion (never merges). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling plan and export tools.

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 phrase 'reviewed staged' and the pre-flight re-checks imply this is the apply step after planning and review, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose it over plan_publication_pr or apply_publication_export. The 'never merges' warning is useful but not alternative routing.

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