Remove merge request approval

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

The description adds one useful behavioral detail: it only removes the authenticated user's approval, not any other user's. This is beyond annotations, which already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). However, it does not mention potential failures (e.g., if the user hasn't approved) or side effects on the merge request's approval status. With annotations covering safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not rich context.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose without any filler or repetitive phrasing. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 well-documented parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior and its user-specific scope. It does not mention edge cases like failure when not approved, but these are not critical given the annotations and schema. The description adequately supports agent selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters (project, merge_request_iid) with clear descriptions (e.g., 'GitLab project ID or full path such as group/project' and 'Project-scoped internal ID'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat this information and correctly does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema.

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 (remove) and the specific resource (the authenticated user's approval on a GitLab merge request). It distinguishes itself by specifying 'authenticated user's approval', which clarifies it only removes the caller's own approval, not others'. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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?

The tool's usage is implied by its purpose—remove an approval. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., approve_merge_request) or any caveats such as 'only works if you have previously approved'. The description provides no context for selection, though the action is straightforward enough that an agent could infer it.

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