Update Merge Request

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds that params_json is passed as kwargs and mentions typed-model operations, but does not disclose what an update changes, whether partial updates are allowed, or side effects; with annotations present, this is adequate but thin.

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 opens with a redundant parenthetical tool name and includes generic boilerplate about GraphQL-only capabilities and examples like get_project that are not specific to this tool. It remains readable, but the generic second paragraph could be trimmed.

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 one generic parameter, no output schema, and open-world behavior, the description explains the dispatch pattern but omits required operation arguments, return behavior, and error handling. An agent would need to consult the GraphQL schema or sibling discovery tool to call it correctly, so completeness is moderate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds this by explaining that params_json values are passed as keyword arguments to the named operation and that some operations auto-build typed models from them. It still does not list the specific kwargs for updating a merge request, but it meaningfully clarifies the parameter mechanism.

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 opening line 'Update merge request' gives a specific verb and resource, and the description distinguishes it as the GraphQL-native counterpart to REST tools. It does not enumerate updateable fields, but the purpose is unmistakable and separable from the delete_merge_request sibling.

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?

It advises preferring this for GraphQL-only capabilities including merge-request update/delete, which signals when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of required permissions or alternatives for updating a merge request beyond the generic family statement.

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