unapprove_merge_request

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

Beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation changes review state, requires approval permission, and returns either the updated result or an error when the request or approval is unavailable. This is valuable behavioral context for a mutating operation, covering permission requirements and failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning their place: the first states the action, the second clarifies usage vs. the merge sibling, and the third covers behavior and errors. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 operation with no nested objects and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, when to use it, permission requirements, and expected outcomes. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage for the two parameters is 100%, so the schema already documents meaning. The description adds only the contextual detail that it removes the current user's approval, which clarifies the operation but does not significantly deepen parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Unapprove a merge request') and immediately clarifies the exact scope: removing the current user's approval. It also distinguishes itself from merge_merge_request, which is the sibling most likely to be confused with it, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to remove the current user's approval from an existing merge request') and provides an alternative condition ('use merge_merge_request only when you intend to merge'). This gives an agent a clear decision rule without needing to infer usage from the tool name.

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