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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the bare minimum for a mutation. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing that the review counts toward branch protection's required approvals and, notably, that it clears the caller's own earlier request for changes — a non-obvious side effect on prior state — plus the author-mismatch and closed-PR failure modes.

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 paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the action and effect, then preconditions, then the sibling escape hatch, then the return shape. Every clause carries distinct information — nothing is restated from the annotations or the schema.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the side effects, permission requirements, failure conditions, and even the return shape ({reviewId, number, state, url}). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the result 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 at the field level, and the description adds no syntax or format detail on top. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter burden, not a deficiency in the description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Approve a pull request") and immediately qualifies what that means: it records an 'approved' review by the caller. It distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming merjax_request_changes as the opposite action, so an agent can route correctly without reading either schema.

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 (PR must be open, caller cannot be the author) plus the alternative action and when to pick it ("To request changes use merjax_request_changes"). It also states required permissions and scope, which is the kind of guidance an agent needs before attempting the call.

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