Submit pull request review

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the requirement that write access must be explicitly enabled, which is a useful behavioral constraint, but it does not clarify consequences of repeated submissions or the meaning of the permission requirement. It is minimal but not contradictory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every clause adds information.

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 has five parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description leaves out key details: what the response will be, whether a body is required for certain events, and how this relates to sibling tools like request_changes. It provides a basic purpose and permission note but is not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 80% and the schema already describes each parameter. The description repeats the event enum values (APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, COMMENT), which adds little beyond the schema's enum. It does not explain when the optional body parameter is needed or the impact of the pull_number.

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) and the resource (pull request review), and enumerates the three possible event types (APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, COMMENT). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_changes or post_review_comment, which target narrower actions.

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 only mentions a permission prerequisite ('Write access must be explicitly enabled') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like request_changes or post_review_comment. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are provided.

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