unapprove_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove your approval') which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. The description provides basic behavioral information but lacks important operational details.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then parameters, then return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The three-part structure (action, args, returns) is efficient and clear.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information but lacks details about authentication, permissions, error conditions, or the exact format of the return confirmation. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for operational use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clearly explaining both parameters in the Args section: 'repo_slug: Repository slug' and 'pr_id: Pull request ID'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules.

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 specific action ('Remove your approval') and resource ('from a pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'approve_pr' and 'decline_pr'. It uses precise language that directly communicates the tool's function.

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 usage context (when you want to retract approval from a PR you previously approved) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'decline_pr' or 'request_changes_pr'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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