merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Merge a pull request', but does not state that merging is an irreversible action, what side effects occur (e.g., source branch closing), or whether special permissions are required. The schema hints at some parameters, but the description itself adds no transparency.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded and not verbose. It is crisp but lacks substantive content; still, for conciseness alone, it is appropriately sized—though under-specified.

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 is minimal for a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It fails to explain merge strategies, optional fields, side effects (like source branch deletion), or what happens after the merge. The rich schema cannot compensate for the lack of high-level behavioral context.

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 all six parameters are already documented with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'merge' with a clear resource ('a pull request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, update, approve, or request changes. However, it lacks any additional context (e.g., platform, scope) beyond the inherent meaning of the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_pull_request or update_pull_request. The description does not mention prerequisites, when merging is appropriate, or any caveats about merge strategies or branch deletion.

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