add_reviewer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that it is a mutation and notes that the reviewer will be notified, which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't discuss reversibility or permissions, but enough is disclosed for basic safe use.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second adds input types and side effects. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter forms, mutation flag, and notification side effect. Missing return-value details, but not critical for this operation.

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% for two parameters, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the reviewer input forms but adds minimal new meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Add a reviewer to a Gerrit change') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_reviewers and post_review by the nature of the operation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative references are given. The description implies usage for adding a reviewer, but lacks guidance on when not to use or how it differs from similar mutation tools.

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