github_pulls_submit_review

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose behavioral traits: no mention of side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens upon submission (e.g., review becomes final, notifications sent).

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the core action.

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?

No output schema and no explanation of return values or effects. With 5 parameters including a nested object, the description is too minimal to guide correct usage. Does not cover how to use the 'body' parameter or what success entails.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'body' parameter is a JSON object, but the description does not clarify its structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states clear verb ('Submit') and resource ('review for a pull request'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'github_pulls_create_review' which might be confused with submission. The purpose is clear but lacks context about the difference between creating and submitting a review.

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 vs alternatives like 'github_pulls_create_review' or 'github_pulls_dismiss_review'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., review must be in 'pending' state) or typical workflow context.

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