Check Project Write Risk

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

Annotations strongly indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the inputs (branch protections and approval config) but does not describe output format, return behavior, or error handling. Since annotations already cover behavioral safety, the description provides moderate additional value without contradiction.

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, clear sentence of 16 words. Every word is necessary, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and only two parameters, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., a risk level string) and provide parameter semantics. It lacks both, leaving the agent unsure of the outcome and how to provide optional input. The tool's moderate complexity is not fully addressed.

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 0%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions 'project’s branch protections and approval configuration' but does not directly map to the two parameters (project_id and target_branch). It omits explanation of what target_branch does (e.g., restrict assessment to a specific branch), leaving the AI agent unclear on 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 uses a specific verb ('assess') and clearly identifies the resource ('project write risk') and the inputs considered (branch protections and approval configuration). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that merely retrieve project settings (e.g., gitlab_get_project_approval_configuration) by combining them into a risk rating.

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 the tool should be used to evaluate mutation risk before write operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like gitlab_get_project_approval_configuration or gitlab_list_protected_branches. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, which limits its guidance for an AI agent.

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