Github Request Reviewers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: both calls echo back the pull request so no follow-up read is needed, and the removal endpoint rejects a teams-only withdrawal unless `reviewers` is also passed — a real API quirk an agent would otherwise hit blind.

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?

Front-loads the two modes in the first sentence, then adds the return-value and edge-case detail in order of importance. The trailing 'See #502' is an opaque dangling issue reference that costs a line without helping the agent act.

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?

An output schema exists, so the brief note about the PR being returned is a bonus rather than a necessity. Combined with annotations covering idempotency and mutability, and the description covering both modes plus the reviewers/teams edge case, this is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only the three identifier parameters lack any prose, and their names are largely self-describing.

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 only 50% (reviewers, team_reviewers and remove are documented; repo_owner, repo_name and pr_number are not), so the description has to carry weight. It does, by explaining the empty-list interaction between `reviewers` and `team_reviewers` on the remove path — semantics the schema alone would not convey.

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 and resource — asking users/teams to review a pull request — and explicitly covers the inverse operation (withdrawing the request) via the `remove` flag. An agent can distinguish this from review-submission siblings like github_submit_review because the description frames it as requesting reviewers, not performing a review.

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 makes the add-vs-withdraw split explicit and routes the agent to github_get_skill('pr-management') for the broader workflow. It does not name any alternative sibling (e.g. when to use github_submit_review or github_update_pr instead), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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