unapprove_merge_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does state the permission requirement and the precondition that the merge request was previously approved, which adds some behavioral context. It does not mention idempotency, failure behavior, or what occurs if the merge request was not previously approved.

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 brief and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by a short permission note. It contains no redundant filler, though the first sentence is somewhat close to restating the tool 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description is minimally sufficient: it identifies the action, the target object, and a permission requirement. However, it lacks guidance relative to the closely related approve_merge_request tool and does not disclose edge-case behavior, making it 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters clearly, including the distinction between project_id and merge_request_iid. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning but does not need to.

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 states a specific verb ('unapprove') and a specific resource ('previously approved merge request'), clearly identifying the operation. This distinguishes it from the sibling approve_merge_request tool without requiring an explicit comparison.

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 phrase 'previously approved' implies the condition under which this tool should be used, and 'Requires appropriate permissions' signals a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with approve_merge_request or explain when not to use it.

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