update_merge_request_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says 'Update'. It does not mention how unspecified fields are handled, whether state transitions are possible, or any side effects. Given the tool's complexity, 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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), mention special parameters like state_event or remove_source_branch, or provide operational context. The description is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 each parameter is documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's brief descriptions (e.g., 'MR title', 'Comma-separated label names') are adequate for basic understanding. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing merge request', which distinguishes it from creation and listing tools. It is unambiguous, but does not elaborate on scope or specific fields beyond what the schema provides.

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 usage for modifying an existing merge request but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_merge_request_tool or get_merge_request_tool. It lacks any context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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