Gitlab Create MR Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '创建新的 Merge Request' implies a write/mutation operation, the description lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., branch merges), error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's core function and key features. It's front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by highlighting essential capabilities.

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 of creating a Merge Request (a mutation with 9 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or important behavioral aspects like required permissions or idempotency. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning assignee and reviewer support, which aligns with the 'assigneeId' and 'reviewerIds' parameters but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: '创建新的 Merge Request' (create a new Merge Request) with specific capabilities: '支持指派 assignee 和 reviewers' (supports assigning assignee and reviewers). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like Gitlab Update MR Tool or Gitlab Accept MR Tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from Gitlab Create MR Comment Tool beyond the core action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing branches), compare it to Gitlab Update MR Tool for modifications, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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