Create merge request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no side effects, permission requirements, draft handling, or response format. The verb 'Opens' is vague about the creation mechanics.

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 concise sentence with no fluff and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for the minimal content it conveys, though this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective richness.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, validation rules, draft prefix behavior, cross-fork support, or how it differs from merge_merge_request. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 only 25% (3 of 12 parameters have descriptions), and the description provides zero parameter semantics. It does not even mention the required source_branch and target_branch, leaving 9 parameters completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 uses a clear verb 'Opens' and identifies the resource 'merge request' plus the key context 'between two branches'. This differentiates it from similar tools like gitlab_merge_merge_request (which performs the merge) and gitlab_update_merge_request. However, it is terse and relies on the title for the 'create' framing.

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 versus alternatives such as list/get/update/merge merge requests. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields, or typical workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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