create_change_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the optional AI review trigger but does not disclose side effects (e.g., permissions required, notifications sent, CI triggers). The description is insufficient 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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It includes categorization '[Code Management]' which adds little value. Every word earns its place, but more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values or outcomes, but it does not. The tool has 12 parameters, and while the schema covers them, the description only names a subset. Critical context like prerequisites or error conditions is missing.

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 enumerates key parameters (source/target branches, reviewers, work items, AI review) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It does not compensate for missing schema details.

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 creates a change request (merge request) and lists supported features like source/target branches, reviewers, work items, and AI review trigger. This distinguishes it from siblings such as create_branch or create_change_request_comment.

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 implies when to use the tool (to create a merge request) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lacks exclusion criteria or context for choosing among siblings.

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