Create commit status

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which already convey the write, non-destructive, and non-idempotent nature. The description adds 'external' and 'for a ref' but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits—useful but minimal additional context.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 3 required, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters, the distinction between 'sha' and 'ref', or when to use this tool over 'list_commit_statuses'. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description remains incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 22%, with only 'sha' and 'project' having descriptions. The tool description mentions 'for a ref' but does not clarify the 'ref' parameter's meaning or other parameters like 'name', 'coverage', 'target_url', or 'pipeline_id'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Create or update an external GitLab commit status') and the target resource ('for a ref'), making it specific and distinct from the sibling tool 'list_commit_statuses' which reads statuses.

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 usage for setting commit statuses but does not explicitly contrast with any alternative or state when not to use it. The sibling 'list_commit_statuses' is an obvious counterpart, but no direct guidance is provided.

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