Edit Merge Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: omit-to-leave-unchanged, empty-string-to-clear, at least one field required, and returns YAML. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not cover permissions or side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then concise semantic rules, Args, and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers update behavior and return format, but omits explanations for the required identifier parameters and does not clarify how to obtain them. Given the presence of an output schema and sibling lookup tools, this is a moderate gap.

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 description explains title and description semantics clearly, but schema coverage is 0% and the required parameters `project` and `review_id` are not described at all. This leaves a gap for agents trying to identify these 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 states 'Edit an existing merge request's title and/or description,' which is a specific verb+resource+fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like put_merge_request (full update) and get_merge_request (read) by emphasizing partial update semantics.

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 provides clear usage context: use when updating title/description, with explicit instructions on omitting fields and clearing the description. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide selection among siblings.

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