set_review_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by clarifying that UNAPPROVED clears a prior review and that the states are mutually exclusive rather than additive. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements or what happens to an existing review comment when the status is changed.

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, both front-loaded: the action and states come first, the operational caveat second. Nothing is redundant and there is no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the state model well. It omits the return behavior (e.g., whether the resulting review object is returned) and permission/self-approval constraints, which an agent would still want before invoking.

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 earns an upgrade by glossing the enum: NEEDS_WORK means 'request changes' and UNAPPROVED means 'clear', which the bare enum values do not convey. It says nothing about the optional 'comment' parameter or how it interacts with the status.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Set') with a precisely scoped resource ('YOUR reviewer status on a PR') and enumerates the three legal states. No sibling tool (update_pull_request, merge_pull_request, decline_pull_request, add_comment) does review-status setting, and the 'YOUR' qualifier makes the personal-reviewer scope unmistakable.

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' is a useful usage rule that tells the agent not to chain calls. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this versus add_comment or update_pull_request, and no stated preconditions such as being a reviewer or not being the PR author.

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