Create Merge Request Note

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which already convey mutability and non-destructiveness. The description adds only 'create' and 'top-level,' offering minimal additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of whether notes are appended, permissions, or side effects).

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 (six words), but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It does not front-load key information about parameters or behavior. A tool with three parameters should provide at least a brief explanation of each input.

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 simple tool structure (3 params, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It fails to describe what a merge request note is, how the 'top-level' distinction matters, or what the expected outcome is. Without parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any of the three parameters (body, project_id, merge_request_iid). The user receives no guidance on what these parameters represent or how to format them beyond the schema constraints.

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 states 'Create a top-level MR note,' which specifies the verb and resource. However, it only marginally distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_create_issue_note or gitlab_create_draft_note, relying on the tool name for context. The phrase 'top-level' hints at differentiation from discussion notes, but is not explicit.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_create_issue_note, gitlab_create_draft_note, or gitlab_create_merge_request_discussion_note). There is no guidance on prerequisites or context.

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