create_merge_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place in conveying the essential functionality.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), provide usage context, or explain what the tool returns. The combination of mutation complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description content.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'workingDirectory' and 'projectId'). With comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Create a new GitLab merge request') and resource ('from a source branch'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request' or 'fetch_pull_request' which are read operations. It precisely communicates the core functionality without ambiguity.

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 like 'fetch_pull_request' or 'get_merge_request', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, branch existence) or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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