Create epic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top – not that a duplicate call creates a second epic (non-idempotent), not what permissions or licensing are required, and not what happens on invalid input. With annotations doing the work, this is a bare pass.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single eight-word sentence cannot carry the load of a six-parameter mutation. Nothing here is wasted, but far too much is missing.

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 creation mutation with six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining resource requirements, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot tell which fields are needed to succeed, what `epic_iid` means on a create, or what the call returns.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description documents none of them. Critically, all six are optional, so it never clarifies that title/group_id are effectively needed, nor what the opaque `data` object or `state_event` accepts. The description provides zero compensation for a completely undocumented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new group epic'), which clearly separates it from issue/milestone creation and from the get/update/delete epic siblings. It does not, however, mention anything that distinguishes it from gitlab_update_epic beyond the verb, nor does it note the group scoping implied by group_id.

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 guidance on when to create an epic versus a sibling item, no prerequisites (e.g., epic must be enabled on the group, requires group-level permissions), and no pointer to gitlab_get_epic or gitlab_update_epic for follow-up. The single sentence leaves the agent to infer everything about context.

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