Delete MR Discussion Note

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

The description repeats the destructiveHint annotation by saying 'permanently' and 'Irreversible', but does not add new behavioral details such as permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The annotations already convey the destructive nature, so the description adds minimal value here.

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?

Two sentences long, no unnecessary words. The action is stated upfront, followed by the prerequisites and a practical pre-check recommendation. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, required parameters, and a pre-check recommendation. It lacks details on timing, rate limits, or errors, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely adequate.

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 must compensate. It names the three required parameters (merge_request_iid, discussion_id, note_id) but omits the optional project_id parameter. No format or source details are given, but the parameter names are self-explanatory for a delete operation.

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 tool deletes an MR discussion note permanently, specifying the required identifiers (merge_request_iid, discussion_id, note_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_delete_merge_request_note or gitlab_delete_draft_note by focusing on discussion notes.

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 recommends a pre-check using gitlab_list_merge_request_discussions, which guides the agent to first retrieve discussion IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast with alternatives, but the suggestion provides practical usage context.

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