jules_rebase_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: rebasing locally and force-pushing with lease, which implies history rewriting. However, it does not mention potential conflicts, required working-tree state, permission implications, or what happens on failure. The force-push-with-lease detail helps but is not fully comprehensive.

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 that front-loads the core operation, includes the method (force-push with lease), and states the intended outcome. No filler or redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the high-level operation and rationale but omits practical details such as conflict handling, prerequisite local repository state, and failure behavior. It is adequate for an informed agent but not fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context that rebase targets the latest base branch and mentions 'main' as an example, which mildly reinforces base_branch semantics, but it does not meaningfully expand on repo_path or pr_url_or_number beyond what the schema already states.

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 (rebase), the resource (an existing Jules GitHub PR), the target (latest base branch), and the mechanism (local rebase followed by force-push with lease). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jules_merge_pr because it is explicitly about rebasing rather than merging.

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 identifies the concrete scenario for use: eliminating PR collision and out-of-date branch warnings on GitHub. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against sibling alternatives, but the intended trigger conditions are clear.

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