update_merge_request_branch

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the important behavioral trait of rebasing, which implies the branch history may be rewritten, but it does not mention side effects, failure conditions, or whether the operation is a no-op when already up to date.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core operation is front-loaded. The parenthetical 'rebase' usefully clarifies the mechanism without adding bulk.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus complete parameter documentation is largely sufficient to call the tool correctly. It could be more complete with explicit caveats around side effects, but the operation is straightforward and well-scoped.

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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline.

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 names a specific operation (update the merge request branch), specifies the mechanism (rebase with latest changes from target branch), and is distinct from sibling operations like merge_merge_request or create_branch. It leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 intended use is implied: invoke this when you need to bring a merge request's branch up to date with its target branch. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over merge_merge_request or mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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