update_mr_discussion_note

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'modify' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

One concise sentence with no wasted words. Essential purpose is communicated efficiently.

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?

The description lacks context about the update operation: what happens on success, whether the note is modified in place, or any constraints (e.g., only the author can modify). Given 5 required parameters and no output schema, more details would improve completeness.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no additional parameter details, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Description states 'Modify an existing merge request discussion note' with a specific verb 'modify' and resource 'merge request discussion note'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_mr_discussion_note' and 'delete_mr_discussion_note'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_mr_note' (for regular notes) or other editing operations. No context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.

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