withdraw_pull_request_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it clears the previous request, allows the PR to be merged, or whether it is reversible). It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or error conditions if no request exists.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a minimum viable level of completeness. However, it lacks important context such as whether the user must be the author of the change request, what happens if the request does not exist, and any side effects on the pull request state. This goes beyond what the parameter and output schema would capture.

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%, and the description does not mention the single required parameter 'pull_request_id'. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit guidance on how the parameter is used, leaving the agent to infer that the pull request must be specified.

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: 'Withdraw your changes request on a pull request.' It uses a specific verb ('withdraw') and identifies the resource ('changes request on a pull request'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying it is the inverse of 'request_pull_request_changes', and 'your' indicates it operates on the user's own request, differentiating it from actions like 'decline_pull_request'.

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 implies the usage context: it is for when you previously requested changes and now want to withdraw them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, such as the need for an existing request by the user.

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