review_change_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (submitting an opinion, optional comment, and optional draft comment submission) but does not mention side effects like reversibility, permission requirements, or return values. It adds some context beyond schema (draft comment submission) but lacks deeper behavioral caveats.

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 front-loads the domain tag and immediately states the verb and resource. It is concise with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 medium-complexity tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the core action and optional behaviors. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the essential decision-making information is present.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only summarizes optionality that the schema already conveys.

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 the specific verb 'review' with the resource 'change request (merge request)' and precisely outlines the action: submit a PASS/NOT_PASS opinion, optionally with a comment and draft comments. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_change_request or merge_change_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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: to submit a review opinion on a change request. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous compared to related actions like creating a comment or merging.

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