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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries real added weight: it explains the review counts toward branch protection's required approvals, that it clears the caller's own earlier request for changes, the auth/scope requirements, and the open-PR/author constraints. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by equivalence/effect, preconditions, permissions, the alternative tool, and the return shape. Every clause adds decision-relevant information with no 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({reviewId, number, state, url}), and covers preconditions, permissions, side effects, and the sibling alternative. Nothing needed to invoke or select the tool is missing.

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 owner, repo, number, and body are already documented (including the Markdown nature of body). The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Approve a pull request') and immediately disambiguates by naming the sibling alternative gluecron_request_changes. It also clarifies the semantic meaning of the action (records an 'approved' review, same as the web form/POST endpoint), so an agent can distinguish it from close_pr, merge_pr, or dismiss_review.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: the PR must be open and its author cannot approve it. It names the alternative tool (gluecron_request_changes) and states the inverse case. Requirements (write access and 'repo' scope) are spelled out, leaving little to inference.

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