Merge GitLab merge request

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

Annotations already flag destructive=True, but the description adds the crucial warning 'This changes the target branch,' which is a valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured metadata. It also hints at asynchronous behavior ('when its pipeline succeeds'). No contradictions.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and include the critical side-effect warning. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 merge operation with nine parameters and a destructive hint, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the core purpose and a key side effect but omits any guidance on return values (though output schema exists), error cases, or permission requirements. It is not inadequate, but it leaves room for improvement on a complex tool.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters, but it does not. It does not clarify the nine parameters, their defaults, or relationships (e.g., auto_merge vs merge_when_pipeline_succeeds). The description adds no parameter-level insight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge'), names the resource ('GitLab merge request'), and clarifies the timing behavior ('now or when its pipeline succeeds'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like rebase_merge_request by warning 'This changes the target branch.' Clear and 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 that the tool is for merging with an option to wait for pipelines, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., update_merge_request or rebase_merge_request). No exclusions or conditions are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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