Unapprove pull request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the core behavior (removing approval) and the scope (authenticated user's). This adds value beyond the title, but it does not mention edge cases such as whether an error occurs if the user has not approved, or if the operation is idempotent.

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 concise sentence that communicates the action and scope without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the primary action. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain return values, potential errors, or prerequisites (e.g., having approved first), leaving moderate gaps in completeness.

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 all 3 parameters (repoSlug, workspace, pullRequestId), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Removes' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the authenticated user's approval from a pull request'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_approve_pull_request and bb_decline_pull_request.

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 when the user wants to remove their approval from a pull request. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like bb_approve_pull_request. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit guidance.

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