remove-change-request-approval

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the action removes the caller's own approval, but it does not mention what happens if no approval exists, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what side effects may occur. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful 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 one short, direct sentence that front-loads the action and includes the necessary scope qualifier. There is no wasted text or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description covers the basic action but omits behavioral context such as error conditions and whether approval ownership is validated. It is minimally adequate for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single changeRequestId parameter already documented as 'The identifier of the Change Request.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses specific language, 'Removes your existing approval from the Change Request', which clearly identifies the action and resource. It also adds scope by saying 'your existing approval,' distinguishing it from removing someone else's approval. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like approve-change-request, 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 'your existing approval' implies the tool should be used when the caller has already approved and wants to withdraw that approval. There is no explicit guidance about alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the implied usage is reasonably clear for a simple action.

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