pr_add_reviewers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Escrita: write + confirm' does disclose that this is a mutating operation and signals a confirmation requirement, which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, permissions, idempotence, or what the confirmation step involves, leaving a substantial gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and adds a behavioral note without padding. The second sentence is terse and slightly cryptic but still scannable and short.

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 5-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks detail on required parameters, confirm behavior, project allowlisting, and expected outcomes, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it from the description alone.

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 only 20%, yet the description contributes meaning only for 'reviewers' ('adiciona reviewers'). It does not explain repo, prId, or the critical confirm boolean, and it fails to compensate for the undocumented majority of the input 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 a specific action ('Adiciona reviewers a um PR') with a clear object, and 'reviewers' clearly distinguishes it from generic PR operations like pr_create/pr_update. However, it does not explicitly disambiguate from pr_update or mention the scope of the addition, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Adiciona reviewers a um PR' implies the use case: when reviewers must be added to a pull request. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over pr_update/pr_comment, no exclusions, and no mention of the confirmation workflow beyond 'write + confirm', so guidance is only implicit.

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