Merge merge request

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one behavioral detail: the option to wait for the pipeline to pass. However, it does not disclose other side effects like source branch removal or irreversibility, which are relevant for a destructive operation. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that starts with the verb and resource, then adds the optional pipeline condition. Every word contributes, with no fluff or redundant information.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool lacks enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The description covers only the basic action and one optional behavior, but leaves parameter semantics, return values, and side effects unexplained. This is inadequate for 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description itself hints at merge_when_pipeline_succeeds ('waiting for the pipeline to pass') but does not explain other key parameters like sha, squash, commit messages, or should_remove_source_branch. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without sufficient meaning for most parameters.

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 'Merges' and the resource 'merge request', and adds a specific behavioral nuance ('optionally waiting for the pipeline to pass') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request or gitlab_update_merge_request. It unambiguously conveys the core action and its scope.

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 the tool is for merging a merge request, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., gitlab_merge_request_action) or when not to use it. The 'optionally waiting for the pipeline' gives some context, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided, so it remains at an implied level.

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