request_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this creates a review state on the PR, who is permitted to call it, whether it can be withdrawn or superseded, or what effect it has on mergeability.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. However, the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness, since the one clause does not carry enough information for a mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: review semantics, permissions, side effects, and response behavior are all unstated. The schema fully covers inputs, but behavior is essentially undocumented.

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 all three parameters (workspace, repo_slug, pr_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier-format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Request changes') and resource ('pull request'), so the action is identifiable. It does not explain that this sets a PR review state rather than editing code, nor distinguish itself from siblings like approve_pull_request, but the purpose is still clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus approve_pull_request, decline_pull_request, or add_pull_request_comment, nor any preconditions (e.g., that the caller must be a reviewer). Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name.

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