github_request_reviewers

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds some useful behavioral context: the operation must route through a specific connector authority, the effect parameter is a claimed read/write that Spring verifies, and approval_ref is needed when resuming a write. However, it never explicitly states that this operation modifies state or what side effects it may have.

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 compact and uses a readable parameter list without excessive verbosity. However, the opening sentence is essentially a tautology and consumes space that could have been used for an actual purpose statement. The structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 real GitHub operation like request_reviewers, the description gives no mention of pull requests, reviewer selection, or any domain-specific input/output behavior. Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves the agent unable to know what the tool does, what arguments to pass, or when to invoke it. This is a significant completeness gap for a seven-parameter connector 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all seven parameters with brief glosses that add some meaning beyond the bare schema, such as 'Authenticated Project UUID' and 'Stable business-action identity.' Nevertheless, the key parameter 'arguments' is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is circular and gives no detail about what the operation expects inside that JSON.

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 merely restates the tool name: 'Github connector operation `request_reviewers` (platform tool `github.request_reviewers`)' without explaining what requesting reviewers actually does or what resource it acts on. It does not mention pull requests, reviewers, or any concrete outcome, so the agent cannot distinguish it from sibling GitHub tools beyond the name.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The only contextual statement, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' is a routing constraint, not a usage guideline.

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