kit_revalidate_pr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool posts a comment, triggers re-validation, and requires specific authentication. It does not mention potential side effects like rate limits or errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 that is front-loaded with the main action and includes all necessary details (prerequisite) without any fluff. 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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to decide when to use this tool. It covers the action, trigger mechanism, and auth requirement. Minor gaps like post-trigger behavior are acceptable for a simple trigger tool.

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 single parameter prNumber is documented in the schema with its type and an example. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what is already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool triggers a Phase 2 Studio re-validation on an open AgentKit PR by posting a /validate comment. It specifies the verb ('Trigger'), resource ('open AgentKit PR'), and mechanism ('posting the /validate comment'), making it distinct from siblings like kit_check_pr_status and kit_validate_structure.

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 explicitly states when to use (open AgentKit PR requiring re-validation) and provides prerequisites (GitHub token with comment-write access). It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the specific action make usage clear.

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