create_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the basic creation action. It does not disclose side effects, required branch existence, permissions, or what response to expect, which is meaningful for a mutating tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action immediately and stops, which is appropriately concise even though it sacrifices usage and behavioral 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?

The complete schema compensates for much of the missing parameter context, making the tool minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not convey the head-to-base branch relationship, return behavior, or when to select this tool among the large sibling group.

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 100%, with all 7 parameters documented meaningfully, including head/source branch, base/target branch, title, body, draft, owner, and repo. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that weight, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('new merge request in a GitLab repository'), so an agent knows this is the MR-creation operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_merge_request_review or merge_merge_request, but the action is 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool over the many sibling merge-request tools (get, list, update, merge, review). There are no preconditions, exclusions, or alternative routing, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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