gitlab_create_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., source branch deletion), authorization needs, or error conditions. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 structured as a clear docstring with bullet points, each line providing specific parameter info. It is concise without unnecessary wording, though it could be slightly more compact by integrating parameter names.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter meanings but lacks details on error handling, default behavior effects (e.g., squash, remove_source_branch), or required conditions. It is minimally complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'description: Optional MR description / body text'). The schema only has titles and types with no descriptions, so the docstring fills the gap effectively.

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 clearly states 'Create a new merge request' and lists parameters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_add_mr_note' or 'gitlab_get_merge_request', but the verb+resource is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as for updating existing MRs or adding notes. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned (e.g., branches must exist, project must be specified).

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