supersede_review_request

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

While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds the important deprecation warning and the concurrency-related detail 'using its current version', which hints at optimistic locking via expected_version. This is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though it stops short of explaining the exact effects of superseding.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately adding a deprecation note. No redundant information. 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?

With the output schema present and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description provides sufficient context for a deprecated tool. It mentions the valid target state ('open or claimed') and the version mechanism. However, it does not elaborate on what 'supersede' does to the original request (e.g., whether it becomes closed), which would be helpful but is not critical given the explicit deprecation direction.

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 75%, with expected_version undocumented. The description's phrase 'using its current version' directly clarifies the role of expected_version (the current version to check against). This adds semantic value beyond the schema, while the remaining params are already described.

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 the specific verb 'Supersede' with a clear resource ('an open or claimed review request') and a mechanism ('using its current version'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling `replace_review_request` by marking itself as deprecated, which resolves 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 description gives an explicit when-to-use context ('open or claimed review request') and directly names an alternative ('prefer replace_review_request'), telling the agent that this tool should not be used in favor of the replacement. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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