Close Merge Request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Returns: Confirmation message' and does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the close is reversible. Context suggests closing is a mutation, but specifics are lacking.

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 with a clear Args/Returns structure. It includes examples inline and stays focused, though slightly more formatting (e.g., bullet lists) could improve readability.

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 simple close operation with two required parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameters, return type, and basic behavior. It does not specify prerequisites like permissions or idempotency, but overall it is adequate given the tool's simplicity and sibling context.

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 schema has 0% coverage with no property descriptions. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: project with an example 'ij' and review_id as 'MR number (e.g., "194108") or internal ID'. This provides clear meaning beyond the raw 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 action 'Close a merge request' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like post_reopen_merge_request and post_delete_merge_request by focusing on the close operation.

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 usage: use when you want to close a merge request. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives among siblings, but the intent is clear from the title and description.

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