Post build status to commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a wrapper containing the original response and a Commit model, and that ParameterError is raised for invalid parameters, but it does not explain auth requirements, side effects, or permissions.

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 leads with the action, but the Args section is boilerplate and inaccurate because the schema exposes 40 explicit parameters rather than generic kwargs. The Returns and Raises lines are useful, while the Args line wastes space.

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 40-parameter write tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It mentions the return wrapper and one error, but an agent still cannot determine which parameters are required for a valid build-status post.

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 40 parameters, and the description only says "**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request." It does not identify project_id, commit_hash, state, name, target_url, or any field-specific meaning, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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: "Post build status to a commit." The action is clear, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as gitlab_get_commit_statuses or explain alternatives for creating commit statuses.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only usage signal is implied by the tool name and title.

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