Create Merge Request

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

The description discloses the core behavior (create) and the return format (YAML with MR number, title, branches). However, with no annotations, it fails to mention important behavioral aspects like required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. It provides minimal behavioral transparency beyond the action itself.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a clean list of args, and a return note. Every line adds value, avoiding irrelevant details or redundancy. The format is easy to parse and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, all parameters, and the return format. Given the output schema exists, return details are not elaborated, but the description is largely complete for a straightforward create tool. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and preconditions, which might be needed in more complex scenarios.

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 offers a detailed explanation for every parameter, including a label and an example (e.g., project: 'ij', repository: 'ultimate'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage), giving the agent clear guidance on what each argument means and how to format them.

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: 'Create a new merge request.' It lists all relevant arguments and the return type, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like patch_merge_request (update) or get_merge_request (read). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for creating new merge requests, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as patch_merge_request or post_close_merge_request. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the verb 'create' and sibling names.

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