merge_change_request

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

The description explicitly warns that this operation 'rewrites the target branch and is not reversible,' a critical side effect. It also mentions optional source-branch deletion. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so well.

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 concise, two sentences long, and well-structured with a category tag. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 with no output schema, the description is quite complete, clearly explaining side effects and options. It could be improved by mentioning what happens after a successful merge, but it adequately covers the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add extra parameter details. The description adds context about the effect of mergeType and removeSourceBranch but does not introduce new information beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Merge a change request') and specifies the merge types and options. It distinguishes itself from siblings like review_change_request by focusing on the merge 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 clearly outlines the use case: merging with a specific merge type. However, it does not explicitly detail when to use this tool versus a review or comment tool, though the sibling context makes it clear. It mentions optional source-branch deletion, providing context on its capabilities.

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