github_remove_requested_reviewers

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions internal routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not what the tool does when invoked, required permissions, side effects, or failure modes.

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 padded with unnecessary routing details that do not help an agent. It fails to deliver concise, actionable information. Two sentences, but only the first adds minimal value.

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?

The tool has one opaque parameter with no guidance, no usage context, and no behavioral disclosure. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how it integrates into pull request workflows. Highly 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?

The only parameter 'arguments' has no schema description and the description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no semantic information about required fields or format. The 0% schema coverage is not compensated.

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 repeats the tool name and states it is a 'Github connector operation,' but does not explicitly define what 'remove requested reviewers' means in the context of GitHub pull requests. The purpose is implied but not clearly stated, and sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like github_request_reviewers or github_dismiss_review. The description gives no context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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