Request changes on a pull request

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

The description notes it is a WRITE operation, but no annotations are provided, and it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., PR status changes), or whether the action is reversible. Without annotations, the description should offer more context about the tool's impact.

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 is concise and front-loaded with 'WRITE'. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/error conditions, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., 'Pull request number' for id). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'WRITE — records the authenticated user's 'request changes' on the PR' clearly identifies the action (request changes) and the resource (pull request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_pull_request and add_pull_request_comment by specifying the 'request changes' action.

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 implies usage for requesting changes on a pull request, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_pull_request or add_pull_request_comment. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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