unapprove_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'Remove approval from a pull request' without disclosing side effects, permissions, behavior when no approval exists, or irreversibility. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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, clear sentence that directly states the action and object. It is concise with no repetitive or extraneous information.

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 simple operation, three required parameters with full schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does and the schema covers arguments. However, behavioral details (e.g., effect if no approval exists) are absent, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (workspace, repository, pull_request_id) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed 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 'Remove approval from a pull request' clearly states a specific action (remove approval) and the resource (pull request). It distinguishes itself from siblings like approve_pull_request and remove_requested_changes, which have different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approve_pull_request or remove_requested_changes. The intended usage is implied by the name and verb, but no exclusions or alternative references are given.

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