remove_reviewer

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

The description includes '(DESTRUCTIVE)' which warns about the mutation, but since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It does not explain what data is affected, whether the operation is reversible, or any 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 sentence with a parenthetical warning, front-loading the action. Every word is purposeful; no filler 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 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and destructiveness. However, it omits expected response behavior and edge cases, and without annotations, the agent lacks information about failure modes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but it is consistent with them.

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 ('requested reviewer from a change request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like request_reviewers and list_requested_reviewers. The parenthetical '(DESTRUCTIVE)' adds a necessary warning without obscuring the purpose.

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 the tool is for canceling a review request but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like update_change_request or submit_review. No exclusion criteria or conditions (e.g., only before review starts) are mentioned.

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