approvePullRequest

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Approve a pull request'. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., triggers CI, adds to review activity), reversibility, permissions needed, or the meaning of the pagination parameters in the schema.

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 sentence, very concise. However, it underspecifies the tool's behavior and does not mention important details like the purpose of the extra parameters, earning its place minimally.

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 6 parameters (some seemingly irrelevant) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, prerequisite conditions, and how the approval interacts with other actions (e.g., unapprove).

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema description; the pagination parameters (pagelen, page, all) are present in schema but unexplained in the description, and their relevance to 'approve' is unclear.

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 clearly states the action ('Approve') and resource ('pull request'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'declinePullRequest' or 'mergePullRequest'. However, the input schema includes pagination parameters (pagelen, page, all) that are irrelevant to a single approval action, creating confusion about the tool's actual 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'mergePullRequest' vs 'approvePullRequest'). The description mentions no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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