workflow_issue_to_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral scope: it creates a branch, commits, MR, issue comment, performs local sync, and updates the issue log. It warns about the preparation_key rejection if base branch is outdated. No contradictions; the tool's actions are clearly described.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: prerequisites, image inspection, idempotency warning, and parameter usage. No redundant or missing information.

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 the tool's complexity (26 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the full workflow: prerequisite call, image review, parameter usage rules, and warnings. The agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant context beyond the schema. For example, it explains when to omit fields (if not explicitly provided by user), that runtime config overrides apply, and for 'issue_images_reviewed' it specifies the prerequisite action. The commit_actions parameter description ties it to delivery_method.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: delivering an issue end-to-end (branch, commit, MR, issue comment, local sync, issue log). It uses a specific verb 'delivered' and resource 'issue_iid', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_merge_request or workflow_requirement_to_delivery.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for existing issue_iid), prerequisites (call workflow_prepare_delivery_workspace first), when to inspect images (if issue may contain image references), and prohibitions ('Do not call this twice for the same issue or same user request'). It also advises checking GitLab first if issue/MR may already exist.

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