Create Merge Request

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate it's a non-read, non-destructive write operation. The description does not disclose traits like permission requirements, side effects (e.g., triggering CI), or result format.

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 short (4 words) but lacks substance. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here, it is under-specified.

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 high parameter count (13), absence of output schema, and no description coverage, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, leaving agents with no useful context for correct invocation.

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 description provides no explanation of any of the 13 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely, leaving agents reliant solely on parameter names.

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 'Create a merge request' clearly states the action (create) and resource (merge request). Among many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., gitlab_approve_merge_request, gitlab_merge_merge_request), it distinguishes the operation. However, it lacks any additional context about the nature of a merge request.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to create versus update or merge a merge request, nor does it mention prerequisites like branch existence.

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