replace_review_request

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context about atomicity and transactional semantics, which goes beyond annotations. It does not detail additional side effects or permissions, but the atomicity disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It clearly conveys the core action and key attribute (atomicity) in an efficient manner.

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 complex operation with 8 parameters and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain preconditions, effects on the predecessor, or parameter relationships. Although an output schema exists, the operational context remains incomplete.

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 description coverage is only 38%, and the description itself mentions no parameters. The tool has 8 parameters with 5 required, and no guidance is provided on their semantics or relationships. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly populate required fields like 'predecessor_expected_version' or 'target_issue_version'.

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's function: to atomically supersede a predecessor review request and create its open successor. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'supersede_review_request', which may cause some ambiguity.

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 phrase 'in one transaction' implies usage where atomicity is required, and the predecessor/successor relationship gives some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'supersede_review_request' or 'create_review_request', leaving the agent to infer.

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