add_reviewer

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action ('adds') without mentioning permissions, whether existing reviewers are modified, idempotency, or error behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with no annotations, output schema, or schema descriptions, the description conveys the core behavior but omits important details like accepted state values, return behavior, and usage context. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description adds some semantics by clarifying that the 'state' parameter controls whether the addition is a reviewer or CC, and that the 'reviewer' can be a user or group. However, it does not clarify 'change_id' or 'gerrit_base_url', leaving those parameters under-explained.

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 uses a specific verb 'adds' with a clear resource 'user or group to a CL' and clarifies the dual role 'reviewer or a CC'. This distinguishes it from siblings like suggest_reviewers, which only suggests rather than adds.

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 description implies the tool is used when you need to add a reviewer or CC to a CL, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like suggest_reviewers or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or edge cases.

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