ado_add_pr_reviewers

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries full transparency burden. It states 'add reviewers' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether reviewers are appended or replaced, what happens on duplicate IDs, or if any permissions are required. The behavioral detail is minimal.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Efficiently communicates the core function. Slightly more context could be included but the conciseness does not harm comprehension.

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 add operation, the description covers the primary purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it misses details like return value, appending vs replacing behavior, and error handling. Adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; all parameters are already described in the schema. The description reinforces 'by identity ID' for 'reviewerIds', but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 'add reviewers' with the parameter 'by identity ID' and target 'to a pull request'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ado_update_pull_request' which could also modify reviewers but via different means.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ado_create_pull_request' or 'ado_update_pull_request'. No mention of prerequisites or context where adding reviewers is appropriate.

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