Withdraw Change Request

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true. The description adds the behavioral fact that it removes a specific status and returns a success message. No contradictions, but limited additional context beyond annotations.

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 short and structured with Args and Returns sections. However, the Args list repeats schema info without adding value. Could be more informative without being verbose.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the basic action and required parameters. However, given low schema coverage and no output schema details in description, it lacks completeness in explaining the exact outcome or conditions (e.g., PR must have 'request changes' status).

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. It lists parameter names but adds only minimal extra meaning (workspace defaults to configured workspace). No details on format, constraints, or usage beyond names.

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 action ('Remove 'request changes' status') and the resource ('a pull request'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like request_changes_pull_request (adds status) and approve_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 implies usage context (after requesting changes) but does not explicitly state when to use, when not, or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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