bb_pr_request_changes

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond those hints: the action is attributed to the authenticated user and is 'visible to the team,' which tells the agent the call has a visible side effect and should not be made casually.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the usage guardrail is stated compactly. Every sentence carries meaning.

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?

With a complete schema, an output schema, and a clear usage guardrail, the definition is sufficient for a simple PR review action. It could add prerequisites (e.g., open PR, permissions) but these are largely implied and not critical for correct selection.

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 schema already documents pr_id, repo_slug, and workspace. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it does not need to under the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action ('Request changes') on a specific resource ('a pull request') and adds the agent-scoping condition 'as the authenticated user.' The action is distinct from sibling tools like bb_pr_approve or bb_pr_comment, so an agent can pick it without further schema inspection.

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?

Gives an explicit gate: 'only call it when the user has asked to request changes.' This is a clear when-to-use/exclusion, though it does not name alternatives or describe situations where it should not be used beyond the user-request condition.

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