set_review_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this applies to the calling user ("YOUR") and that the states are mutually exclusive, implying a single overwritten state. However it omits permissions required, whether an existing review is overwritten, reversibility, and notification side effects for what is a mutation.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, then the state enumeration. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must cover enough for a mutation call. It handles the core state semantics well but leaves gaps: whether review state is overwritten, auth/permission requirements, and what the call returns. Adequate but with clear holes.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the enum: NEEDS_WORK is glossed as "request changes" and UNAPPROVED as "clear," which the bare enum values do not convey. It does not explain the optional comment parameter's role beyond the schema text.

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 verb (Set) plus resource (YOUR reviewer status on a PR) and enumerates the three mutually exclusive target states. No sibling tool in the list sets review status, so the scope is unambiguous and an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

"One call; the three states are mutually exclusive" gives implicit usage guidance about how the tool is invoked, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives (e.g., add_comment for discussion versus NEEDS_WORK for blocking). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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