jules_merge_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key side effect: deletion of the remote branch, and notes the external 'gh' dependency. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or PR state after merge, but the main destructive behavior is explicit.

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 sentence with the verb and target front-loaded; every phrase earns its place. The scope qualifier ('verified... opened by Google Jules') and the destructive side effect are included without filler.

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 simple merge tool with complete schema coverage, this is nearly sufficient, but it lacks explicit preconditions, alternatives, or expected outcome guidance. Since there is no output schema, the description does not describe what a successful merge returns or how failures surface.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the default merge behavior and branch deletion that are already in 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 names a specific verb ('squash-merge'), a specific resource class ('GitHub PR opened by Google Jules'), and an explicit destructive follow-up ('delete the remote branch'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jules_rebase_pr and jules_review_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?

It establishes a context: only verified PRs opened by Google Jules should be merged here. However, it does not explicitly name the verification workflow or say when NOT to use this tool, nor does it route to alternatives such as jules_verify_patch or jules_rebase_pr.

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