bb_unapprove_pull_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that only the authenticated user's approval is removed, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 obvious parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral detail, leaving the agent to infer some important aspects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. The parameter names (projectKey, repoSlug, id) are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description does not clarify that 'id' refers to the pull request ID.

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 states a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('the authenticated user's approval from a PR'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also clearly differentiates from siblings such as bb_approve_pull_request and bb_decline_pull_request.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. There is no mention of prerequisites like having previously approved the PR or needing certain permissions.

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