approve_mr

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the permission requirement, but does not explain what happens upon approval (e.g., state change, notifications) or potential side effects. Key details from the schema, like SHA verification and password requirements, are omitted.

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?

Two sentences, minimal and to the point. No redundant information. Every word is necessary and valuable.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to cover return values, error scenarios, or operational context (e.g., idempotency, authorization details beyond permission). It is too brief for a tool that modifies state.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, which are already clear. No improvement or clarification provided.

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 ('Approve') and the resource ('a merge request'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also mentions a permission requirement, which adds specificity. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'unapprove_mr'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unapprove_mr, update_merge_request). The description only notes a permission prerequisite, but does not provide contextual cues or exclusions.

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