submit_pr_review

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits a review with three possible outcomes, but omits critical behavioral details for a mutation: side effects like PR status changes, permission requirements, whether the review replaces an existing one, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical list, front-loading the core action and resource. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not mention what happens after submission, any required permissions, or whether the body is optional/conditionally required. The description leaves major gaps that could lead an agent to misuse the 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 low (40%, only body and event have descriptions). The tool description adds no meaning for owner, repo, or pull_number, and the event types in parentheses merely restate the enum values. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters or explain any constraints (e.g., body required for REQUEST_CHANGES).

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 ('Submit a review'), the target resource ('a pull request'), and enumerates the three possible event types in parentheses. This directly maps to the 'event' enum and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_pr_review_comment (inline comments) 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_pr_review_comment for inline comments or other PR-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit references to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the basic purpose.

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