request_changes_on_pr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavioral side effects. It merely states 'Request changes' without disclosing that this mutates the PR's review status, notifies the author, or may require specific permissions. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely short, but it wastes space by repeating the parameter list exactly as in the schema. There is no efficient prose that enhances understanding. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as the Args block duplicates structured data without adding value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is a mutating operation with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. The description fails to provide critical context such as when the operation is valid, what side effects occur, or what the response represents. The input semantics are incomplete, making the tool difficult to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only lists parameter names (pr_id, workspace, repo) with no additional meaning. It does not clarify which are required, how to obtain the slug, or that workspace and repo have defaults. This provides zero value beyond the schema itself.

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: 'Request changes on a pull request.' The verb 'Request changes' is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like approve_pull_request, merge_pull_request, and decline_pull_request. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with remove_request_changes, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a PR is open, when you are a reviewer, or how this differs from remove_request_changes). No prerequisites or contexts are mentioned. This leaves the agent without enough information to decide between this and similar PR review tools.

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