Request Changes on Pull Request

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the effect ('sets reviewer status to 'needs work'') and the return type ('Participant details with updated state'). Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description neither contradicts nor repeats this, providing complementary behavioral 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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose, an Args block, and a Returns line. It front-loads the core action and uses a clean structure, with no extraneous information. Every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value adequately for a simple tool. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, pull request state) and does not contrast with similar siblings. Given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, it is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description fills the gap by listing parameters with brief explanations like 'Repository slug' and 'Workspace name (optional, defaults to configured workspace).' While these add basic meaning, they are minimal and could be more detailed (e.g., format or constraints).

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 tool's action: 'Request changes on a pull request (sets reviewer status to 'needs work').' It uses a specific verb and resource, and among siblings like approve_pull_request and decline_pull_request, it distinctly identifies its function.

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 implies usage for requesting changes but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like approve or decline. No exclusion criteria or contextual hints are provided, so the agent must infer from the tool's name and siblings.

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