gitlab_create_merge_request

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the API endpoint, omitting details about idempotency, side effects (e.g., triggering pipelines), authentication, or error conditions. The input schema provides some constraints, but the tool description itself lacks behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more depth.

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?

Given 14 parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the overall workflow, return values, or how the tool fits into a larger process. The input schema compensates somewhat, but the description lacks 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed (e.g., for project_id, referencing runtime config), but the top-level description does not enhance 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 verb 'Create' and resource 'merge request', and explicitly references the GitLab REST API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request and gitlab_approve_mr.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a merge request vs. approving or getting one). No context about prerequisites or when not to use it is given.

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