create_mr_discussion_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 that a discussion is created, with no mention of permissions, whether a position/diff context is required, how the discussion is returned, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable. Under-specification is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 tool is simple, has a full input schema, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, without annotations or usage guidance regarding discussion versus note semantics, the description is only minimally viable. It covers the basic action but leaves contextual ambiguity around when and how to use it.

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 input schema already documents body, project_id, and merge_request_iid. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the general action. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new discussion on a merge request.' It clearly identifies the action and target. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_mr_note_tool, which could be confused on whether a 'discussion' is a thread versus a note.

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 over alternatives like create_mr_note_tool or list_mr_discussions_tool. It does not state whether discussions differ from notes or whether this is the correct tool for starting a new thread. Usage context is entirely implied by the name and target resource.

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