unapprove_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or has side effects. It doesn't mention what happens if the user hasn't approved the PR or whether approval notifications are sent.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or filler text. It is concise and directly communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple with only one parameter and has an output schema, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or the outcome of unapproving, and it does not compensate for the missing annotations or parameter documentation. This leaves the description incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

The input schema shows a single required integer parameter 'pull_request_id' with no description, and the tool description does not explain the purpose of this parameter. There is 0% schema description coverage, and the description fails to compensate by explicitly stating that the parameter identifies the pull request to unapprove.

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 a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource ('your approval from a pull request'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_pull_request and request_pull_request_changes by focusing on the act of retracting an approval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., must have previously approved) or exclusions. The context of 'removing approval' is implied but not explicitly framed as a corrective or retraction action.

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