Create merge request discussion

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that inline comments require the latest diff version SHAs and file position, which is useful prerequisite info beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like response structure or side effects, though the output schema covers return values.

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 a key detail. No redundant information or filler. The structure is optimal for quick scanning and understanding.

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 tool with a nested position object and multiple required fields, the description provides the essential distinction (top-level vs. inline) but does not elaborate on the full structure of the position parameter. The schema fills in details, and the output schema exists, so it is reasonably complete but could mention common pitfalls or prerequisites.

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 50% (project and merge_request_iid have descriptions). The description adds meaning to the position parameter by stating inline comments need the latest SHAs and file position, which compensates partially. Body is self-explanatory, but no additional detail is provided for it. Overall, it adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Create a top-level or inline review thread on a GitLab merge request,' using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('merge request discussion') and explicitly distinguishes the two modes (top-level vs. inline). This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like list_merge_request_discussions or reply_merge_request_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 implies usage for creating new discussions but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. The line about inline comments requiring specific SHAs gives some context but no comparison to reply or list tools. Guidance is present but not explicit.

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