request_pull_request_changes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Request changes' without disclosing what that entails (e.g., whether it creates a review, changes status, notifies people, or has side effects). No behavior beyond the literal verb is described.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 description is minimal and does not provide enough context about the tool's role in the pull request workflow. While the output schema exists and the parameter is simple, the lack of annotation and behavioral detail makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand when and how to use this tool, especially among many similar siblings.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'pull_request_id'. The tool description does not explain this parameter at all, relying on the schema name and type (integer) to convey meaning. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Request changes') and the resource ('pull request'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like 'withdraw_pull_request_changes' or 'decline_pull_request', so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap given the presence of similar sibling tools.

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