Create project approval rule

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior. The description adds value by noting that a capability preflight is needed and that explicit acknowledgement prevents accidental governance changes, which are behaviorally relevant beyond what annotations convey.

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, concise, and front-loaded with the action. No redundancy or filler; every word adds value.

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 9 parameters, 4 required, an enum, and nuanced safety requirements (acknowledge_policy_change), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the purpose of most parameters, the exact requirements (e.g., acknowledge_policy_change must be true), or the expected outcome. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but input semantics and prerequisites are under-specified.

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 11% (only 'project' is described). The description fails to explain most parameters (e.g., name, approvals_required, user_ids, group_ids, protected_branch_ids, etc.). It only hints at the acknowledgement parameter, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct usage.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a merge-request approval rule'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list/get/update/delete) and mentions a prerequisite (capability preflight), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool (to create a new rule) and mentions a prerequisite (capability preflight), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like update. Still, the context is clear enough for the agent.

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