Review a pull request

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the write-mode auth requirement, the self-approval restriction enforced by the forge, the default commit_id behavior (current head), and the return shape. Annotations already cover safety hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so this added context is genuinely additive; failure modes and rate limits remain unstated.

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?

Front-loads the action and required identifiers, then layers in constraints and defaults in a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences. Each clause (verdict, body requirement, commit_id default, self-approval rule, return shape) earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, forge-imposed constraints, and even the return value shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the verdict enum and commit_id default. The description restates these without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 when structured data carries the load.

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 ("Submit a review on a pull request") and immediately enumerates the required identity fields. The reference to list_pull_request_reviews' shape distinguishes it from the read-side sibling and from merge_pull_request, so an agent can route it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the precondition "requires write mode" and encodes the verdict-selection logic (approve / request_changes / comment) plus the rule that body is mandatory for the latter two. It also warns that a forge won't let you approve your own PR. Missing is an explicit pointer to alternatives like merge_pull_request, so it falls just short of 5.

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