gitlab_add_merge_request_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it specifies the return value ('Returns: Created comment object'), mentions supported features ('Supports: Markdown, mentions, slash commands'), and provides a concrete example. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, return value, usage guidance, supported features, example, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct, valuable information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality first.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of providing context. It covers purpose, usage, return value, and supported features. However, as a write operation, it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or potential side effects that aren't covered by the schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement 'Add comment to merge request' that precisely states what the tool does. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request_notes (read existing) and gitlab_get_merge_request_discussions (threaded view), making the purpose specific and 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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use when: Code review feedback, discussions' and lists related tools with their specific purposes ('Read existing', 'Threaded view'). This gives clear context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, including both positive guidance (when to use) and implicit exclusions (when not to use).

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