Edit Merge Request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without any details on side effects, required permissions, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what happens with fields like state_event. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It wastes no words, though it is almost too terse given the tool's complexity. Still, for what it communicates, it is appropriately compact.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain key aspects like how state_event works, whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset, or what the return value signifies. The minimal description leaves too much to inference for such a parameter-rich 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?

The schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., title, assignee_id, state_event), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing merge request' clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'merge request', and the word 'existing' serves to distinguish it from the sibling tool gitlab_create_merge_request. While it doesn't enumerate updatable fields, the schema covers that, and the purpose 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for modifying existing MRs only, nor does it provide any preconditions or exclusions. The word 'existing' implies it is not for creation, but no explicit alternative or context is given.

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