unapprove_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool removes an existing approval and scopes the operation to the user's own approval. Some details like behavior when no approval exists are absent, but the core mutating behavior is transparent.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and delivers complete information efficiently.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides all essential context needed to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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%, and both parameters have straightforward schema descriptions (repo_slug and pr_id). The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already documents them adequately, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('your approval from a pull request'), making the action unambiguous. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling approve_pull_request by stating the opposite operation.

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 phrase 'your approval' provides clear context for when this tool should be used: to withdraw an approval the current user previously gave. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended use is evident from the wording.

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