merge_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation mutates state by writing to the default branch, but never discloses what happens to the Change Request after merging (marked merged? closed?), whether it can fail if the branch state changed, what the response looks like, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The core action, scope, and both preconditions are packed in efficiently, with the action and destination front-loaded before the qualifying conditions.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the essential precondition is stated, but it lacks failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the merge fails at the last moment), post-merge state of the change request, and any indication of the response. The presence of rollback_change among siblings hints at reversibility but the description itself never addresses it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, change_id, is just labeled 'string' in the schema; the description adds meaning by implying it refers to the Change Request to merge and that it must be approved and conflict-free. Given only a single simple parameter, the implicit clarification is adequate, though it could state the ID format or reference explicitly.

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 states a specific verb (merge) applied to a specific resource (Change Request) with a clear destination (project's default branch). It also encodes preconditions (approved, conflict-free) that distinguish it from sibling stages like approve_change, request_changes, and check_mergeability. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, so it falls just short of a perfect 5.

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?

Usage context is implied through the preconditions 'approved, conflict-free' – an agent can infer it should only run after approval and after mergeability checks succeed. However, it never explicitly states when-not-to-use, names alternative tools (e.g., check_mergeability before, rollback_change after), or mentions sequencing with the change lifecycle siblings. The guidance is inferred, not stated.

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