Create note

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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, whether calling twice creates duplicate comments (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or what happens when the body is empty.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is lean, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 write operation with five undocumented parameters, zero required fields, and no output schema, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot tell which fields must be supplied or what 'data' does. Given the complexity and 0% schema coverage, substantially more explanation is warranted.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it never mentions body, project_id, issue_iid, note_id, or the unexplained 'data' object. 'on an issue' weakly maps to issue_iid, but note_id and data remain entirely opaque with zero required parameters to disambiguate.

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 new note/comment') and narrows the target to an issue, which implicitly separates it from gitlab_create_commit_comment and the update/delete/get note siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 use this tool versus gitlab_update_note, gitlab_create_commit_comment, or the generic api_request siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The reader must infer usage entirely from the name and the word 'issue'.

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