Submit a review

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and irreversibility profile is covered structurally. The description adds the conditional body rule tied to the event, which is useful, but nothing beyond the schema and annotations about auth needs, rate limits, or what happens on re-submission.

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?

A single compact sentence with the enumerable actions front-loaded, no filler. The phrasing "as you:" is slightly awkward, but it costs nothing in length and the requirement note is appended efficiently.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety, and it covers the core requirement rule. It is adequate for correct invocation, missing only alternative-tool routing detail.

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 100%, so all four parameters (repo, number, event, body) are already documented in the schema, including the body's conditionality. The description restates the body requirement without adding syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submits a review on a pull request") and enumerates the three possible verdicts, so the agent understands the operation precisely. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling comment_on_pull_request, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 when each event applies through the enum values and notes that REQUEST_CHANGES and COMMENT need a body, which is actionable context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over comment_on_pull_request or the preconditions (permissions, whether a review already exists).

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