Update merge request

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context such as whether changes are reversible, what fields are commonly updated, or potential side effects. The description merely restates the mutation implied by the annotations.

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 only 5 words long, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no structuring of information and fails to convey essential details, making it nearly tautological with the title.

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 complex mutation tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected inputs, behavior, response, or any operational context. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 7%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not mention any parameter, field, or constraint. The 14-parameter schema is left entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without semantic understanding beyond raw types.

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 'Edits a merge request' clearly states the action (edit/update) and resource (merge request), which distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_merge_request. However, it does not differentiate from related mutation tools such as gitlab_merge_request_action or gitlab_merge_merge_request, giving only a generic sense of purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage context beyond the bare action.

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