create_merge_request_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, creation limits, or any post-creation behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 extremely concise—a single sentence—but it borders on being under-specified. It avoids wasted words, yet it lacks the depth expected for a tool with 10 parameters. It's not verbose, but it also doesn't provide enough structure or front-loading of key 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 has 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not mention any constraints, prerequisites, or post-conditions beyond what the schema states. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves out important operational context like when creation fails or what happens to the source branch by default.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific explanation beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to; the schema thoroughly documents each parameter. The description earns the baseline score without exceeding it.

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 action ('Create a new merge request') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_merge_request. However, it lacks any context about which project or how it contrasts with other MR-related tools, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_merge_request, create_issue). There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing an existing source branch or project access, even though the schema notes the source branch must exist. The description provides no usage context.

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