Update Reviewers

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

The description simply states 'update' without disclosing important behavioral traits such as whether the update replaces the existing list or appends to it, whether the repo must already be initialized, or any side effects. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond what annotations already imply.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no redundant or unnecessary words.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the primary operation. However, it lacks explicit mention of whether the change is a replacement or merge, which would add completeness.

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?

Both parameters (agent_id and reviewers) are documented in the input schema with descriptions ('Agent id' and 'List of reviewer usernames'). The tool description does not add any further parameter semantics or clarify formats, so it meets the baseline for full 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'update' and clearly identifies the resource: the list of reviewers for an agent's git repo. This distinguishes it from sibling git tools like init, get_status, and create_pr, which serve different purposes.

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: use this tool when you want to update the reviewers list for an agent's repo. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the tool's uniqueness but leaves some room for ambiguity.

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