create_mr_discussion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can create general or inline discussions and supports attachments. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., notifications), permissions required, or response behavior. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence contributes value. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters (including a nested object), the description is functional but incomplete. It does not explain what the API returns (e.g., discussion ID) or any error behavior. For a create tool, more detail on response would be beneficial.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining how attachments work via the {{placeholderName}} syntax and that the position parameter is for inline comments. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 tool creates a new discussion on a merge request and distinguishes between general discussion and inline comment on the diff. It highlights the attachment embedding feature, which helps differentiate from other discussion-related tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_mr_discussion_note or reply_to_mr_discussion.

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 indicates that the tool can be used for either general discussion or inline comments, providing context on when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., when replying to an existing discussion) or mention alternatives like reply_to_mr_discussion.

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