unapprove_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or behavior when the user hasn't approved. The phrase 'your approval' gives minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a minimal arg list. It is free of unnecessary prose, though the arg list largely duplicates information already present in the schema.

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, single-purpose mutation with an output schema, the description covers the core action and args. However, it omits any mention of preconditions, side effects, or required vs optional parameters, leaving the agent with incomplete context for a state-changing tool.

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. It lists three args with terse explanations ('PR ID number', 'Workspace slug', 'Repository slug') that add little beyond the property names and types. It also fails to indicate that workspace and repo are optional (they have defaults) or clarify what a slug means.

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 opens with 'Remove your approval from a pull request,' which is a specific verb+resource phrase that precisely describes the action. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like approve_pull_request, request_changes_on_pr, and merge_pull_request.

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 action itself implies the use case (withdrawing your approval), but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other PR state-change tools or mention alternatives. There are no exclusions or contextual preconditions, so usage guidance 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.