gh_pr_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals that the body is passed via a temp file to avoid shell quoting and that it wraps only `gh pr create`, not the push. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the obvious 'create' action, though it does not mention authentication or output details.

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 succinct and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the subsequent sentences add essential context without unnecessary fluff. 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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, so the description appropriately focuses on behavior and prerequisites rather than repeating schema details. It covers the temp-file mechanism and the push requirement. It is largely complete, though it could mention potential error conditions or authentication dependencies.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra semantics by noting the body is passed via a temp file, which slightly clarifies body handling, but otherwise relies on the schema for parameter meanings.

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 opens with 'Create a pull request,' which is a specific verb with a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling issue-related tools by focusing on pull requests, and the statement 'this wraps ``gh pr create`` only, not the push' further clarifies its exact scope.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'The current branch must already be pushed to the remote' and explicitly states the tool does not perform the push. It implies the user should use this only after pushing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the push limitation.

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