removeChangeRequest

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

Annotations already indicate destructive mutation, but description adds that it applies only to 'your' change request, that the mechanism is superseding with an APPROVED review, and that GitVerse lacks a dedicated endpoint. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, without contradicting them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, method, and platform rationale with zero filler. Every part earns its place.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: what it does, how it works, and platform context. The precondition that an existing change request must exist is implicit but not stated, a minor gap.

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 all four parameters (body, repo, owner, pull_number) already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

States a specific verb ('remove'), resource ('change request'), and the mechanism ('superseding it with an APPROVED review'). Also notes GitVerse has no dedicated un-request endpoint, which clearly distinguishes it from any direct removal tool and from siblings like requestChanges or approvePullRequest.

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?

Explains why this tool exists (no dedicated un-request endpoint) and implies the agent should use it when wanting to remove a change request. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use them, so guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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