Reopen Merge Request

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the important prerequisite that the source branch must exist and provides actionable advice if it was deleted. It also mentions the return type. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the MR is already open, leaving some gaps.

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 concise. The summary line is front-loaded, followed by a useful note about the source branch, then clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is purposeful, 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?

For a simple tool with only two parameters, the description covers the purpose, an important prerequisite, parameter semantics, and the return type. The input schema and this description together provide enough information for correct use. It also aligns well with sibling tools in the same domain.

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 only lists parameter types (strings), giving no semantic meaning. The description compensates fully by explaining 'project' with an example ('ij') and clarifying that 'review_id' can be an MR number ('194108') or internal ID. This adds significant value beyond the 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 tool's function: 'Reopen a closed merge request.' This is specific, uses a strong verb, and names the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like post_close_merge_request and put_merge_request.

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 context: it is for reopening a closed MR. It also gives practical guidance about the source branch needing to exist. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, falling short of a 5.

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