github_pulls_remove_requested_reviewers

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects (e.g., whether removed reviewers are notified), idempotency, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, which is concise. However, it sacrifices essential information for brevity, making it less useful.

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?

Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., pull request must exist), error cases, return values, or behavior when no reviewers are specified. The mismatch between described action and schema parameters further reduces completeness.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, each parameter has only its name as description (e.g., 'owner'), offering no meaningful context. Moreover, the description implies a reviewer parameter that is absent from the schema, causing confusion.

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 states 'Remove requested reviewers from a pull request', which is clear in verb and object, but lacks details on which reviewers are removed. More critically, the input schema omits any parameter to specify reviewers, creating a mismatch that could mislead an agent into expecting a reviewer selection capability.

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 like github_pulls_request_reviewers or github_pulls_list_requested_reviewers. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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