unapprovePullRequest

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds valuable context: it finds and deletes the latest APPROVED review by the caller, implying it only affects the caller's own approval. This goes beyond annotation hints and clarifies the specific side effect, though it doesn't mention behavior when no approval exists.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action ('Remove your approval') and explains the mechanism. No superfluous words or repetition.

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 tool with three self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description is functionally complete. It covers the key behavioral nuance (only your own approval) but omits edge-case behavior (e.g., if the user has no approved review). This minor gap keeps it from a 5.

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 straightforward parameters (owner, repo, pull_number). The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the parameters are self-explanatory and require no further elaboration.

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 specifies the verb 'Remove your approval' and the target resource (pull request approval). It distinguishes itself from siblings like approvePullRequest, declinePullRequest, and removeChangeRequest by explicitly focusing on removing one's own approval.

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 conveys its purpose (removing your approval) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as removeChangeRequest or declinePullRequest. No exclusions or conditions are given, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and description.

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