unapprove_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that only the caller's own approval is affected, but a mutation tool should also disclose failure modes such as behavior when no prior approval exists, permission requirements, and whether the PR's review state is otherwise untouched. Those gaps leave the behavioral profile only partly covered.

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, zero waste: the first states the action and the second states the triggering conditions. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or name.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it but says nothing about results or failure handling. It is minimally viable rather than fully self-sufficient.

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%, so prId, repository, and project are all documented in the schema, including the BITBUCKET_DEFAULT_PROJECT fallback for project. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Remove your approval from a pull request') and is instantly distinguishable from the sibling approve_pull_request and from decline_pull_request. The object scope ('your approval') is explicit, so an agent knows this is a self-approval retraction, not a general review 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?

Gives clear situational guidance ('retract a previous approval if you discover issues after approving or if the PR has changed since your review'), which tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., using decline_pull_request when the PR should be blocked), so it falls short of a full when/when-not specification.

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