requestChanges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds 'by submitting a REQUEST_CHANGES review,' which clarifies the exact API action, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing reviews are overridden or if the PR status changes. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds only marginal context.

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 precise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and target, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description omits practical details such as that body is optional and how this action interacts with other review states (e.g., whether it supersedes an approval). With annotation coverage and a high-schema description, it hits the minimum viable level but does not fully clarify the behavior in the context of sibling review tools.

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 all parameters (owner, repo, pull_number, body) are documented. The description does not add any supplementary meaning for parameters beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Request changes' on a 'pull request' and specifies the mechanism 'by submitting a REQUEST_CHANGES review.' This distinguishes it from siblings like approvePullRequest and declinePullRequest, which have different intents and review types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this is for blocking merge or that approvePullRequest is for approval, nor does it indicate when to avoid it (e.g., instead of removeChangeRequest). Agents must infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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