Request pull request changes

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the prerequisite about write access and emphasizes the required explanation, providing context beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations and offers useful operational detail, though it does not describe broader side effects on the PR.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a necessary prerequisite without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, 4 required parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It does not elaborate on effects or return values, but these are not critical for this straightforward action. A brief note distinguishing from submit_review would have made it more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., body is required explanation). With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the action: 'Submit a REQUEST_CHANGES review' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like post_review_comment or submit_review by naming the exact review type. The title reinforces 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 offers a prerequisite: 'Write access must be explicitly enabled.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like submit_review, though the name and description imply specialized use for requesting changes. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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