Create commit comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds generic return and error behavior by mentioning a wrapper response and ParameterError, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or visibility of the comment.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but it includes boilerplate Args/Returns/Raises sections. The '**kwargs' line is vague and the Returns/Raises details are generic, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 40 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It states the basic purpose and return/error behavior, but it leaves an agent without the parameter semantics needed to call 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?

The schema has 40 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only says '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request,' which gives no meaningful semantics for required fields like project_id or optional fields like commit_hash, note, line, and path.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a comment on a commit.' This clearly tells an agent what the tool does, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as gitlab_get_commit_comments or gitlab_create_note.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools like gitlab_get_commit_comments or gitlab_create_note.

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