Rebase GitLab merge request

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the rebase is enqueued asynchronously, the result must be polled, and it only works when the source branch is a fast-forward of the target. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then follow-up polling guidance and a precondition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers the action, asynchronous behavior, polling mechanism, and precondition. An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The only notable gap is the undocumented skip_ci parameter, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 67%: project and merge_request_iid are described, but skip_ci has no description. The tool description does not explain skip_ci or add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high 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 ('Enqueue a GitLab rebase') and the resource ('merge request source branch'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like merge_merge_request or update_merge_request by focusing specifically on rebasing.

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 provides clear usage context: it tells the agent to poll with get_merge_request and include_rebase_in_progress, and states the fast-forward precondition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient.

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