update_mr_note

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

Without annotations, the description reveals that updates modify content and supports embedding via attachments, but does not specify if the update fully overwrites existing content, the behavior of missing fields, or any side effects.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and key feature (attachment embedding), with no redundant 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core functionality but omits return value, error handling, and constraints (e.g., note must be top-level). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds value by clarifying Markdown support for body and providing a concrete example for attachments, which exceeds the schema alone.

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 (update) and resource (existing top-level note/comment on a merge request), and differentiates from sibling tools like create_mr_note and update_mr_discussion_note by specifying 'top-level 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?

The description implies use for updating existing top-level notes but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like update_mr_discussion_note or create_mr_note. No when-not or context provided.

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