Create Code Discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (creating a discussion), the anchoring mechanism (revision and line), and that Markdown is supported in the text. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions, which would have improved transparency for a mutation tool.

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: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters with examples, and a brief returns statement. Every sentence adds value, and the layout is easy to parse, making it both concise and appropriately detailed for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

Despite having no annotations and 7 required parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with examples, and a returns statement. An output schema exists, so detailed return documentation is not required. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though edge cases or error handling are not mentioned.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing each of the 7 parameters with a name and an example (e.g., 'project: Project key (e.g., "ij")', 'revision: Git commit SHA the comment is anchored to'). This gives agents clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an inline code discussion on a specific file and line of a merge request.' This distinguishes it from siblings like post_merge_request_comment (general MR comment) and post_reply_to_code_discussion (reply to an existing discussion).

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to create an inline comment on a specific file and line of a merge request. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly among siblings.

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