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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it enumerates every merge path the review blocks (web, API, MCP merge, merge queue, merge train, autopilot), specifies the required 'repo' scope and write access, and notes the body is posted as a comment. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations alone could not provide.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and its effect. Information-rich with little waste, though the long parenthetical list of merge paths makes it slightly unwieldy.

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 output schema and only optimistic annotations, the description supplies the side effects, the blocking semantics, the permission requirements, and the escape hatch (dismissal). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is only 25% (only body is described), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that body is posted as a comment and mentions required 'repo' scope, but adds nothing about owner/repo/number semantics; partial compensation warrants a baseline 3.

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 ('Request changes on a PR') and immediately clarifies the underlying mechanism ('Records a changes requested review'), which distinguishes it from gluecron_approve_pr and gluecron_dismiss_review among the siblings.

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?

Implicitly conveys when to use it — to block merging until the caller approves — and explicitly names the dismissal counterpart gluecron_dismiss_review. It does not state explicit when-not conditions, but the merge-blocking context is clear.

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