gitea_request_pr_reviewers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose side effects (notifications sent), idempotency, error conditions (invalid PR number, non-existent reviewers), or rate limiting. Only states the basic action without behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately brief, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without value. The sentence is front-loaded but lacks sufficient substance to justify its existence beyond the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and a mutation operation that changes PR state, the description is significantly incomplete. It should explain success indicators, error scenarios, and the mutation semantics.

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% for 5 required parameters. The description mentions 'reviewers' implicitly but provides no format guidance (usernames vs IDs), doesn't explain 'site' (Gitea instance URL), and offers zero compensation for the undocumented schema.

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 states the basic action (request reviewers) and target (pull request), but includes noise metadata '[UNIFIED]' that doesn't help the LLM. It fails to distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'gitea_create_pr_review' or specify this is specific to Gitea instances.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus creating a direct review, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., PR must exist, reviewers must be valid users), and no alternative approaches suggested.

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