Merge Merge Request

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond what annotations already provide. It does not explain the effects of merging (e.g., combining branches, potential conflicts, deletion of source branch) or any requirements like permissions.

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 very short, but it is underspecified rather than concise. It adds no value beyond the tool name, failing to earn its place with informative content.

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 tool's complexity with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the merge operation, required inputs, success conditions, or error scenarios.

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 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters are described. The description omits any information about critical parameters like project_id, source_branch, merge_request_iid, squash, or auto_merge, leaving the agent without guidance on how to structure the call.

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 action 'Merge' and resource 'merge request', which is a specific verb+resource pair. However, it is a minimal restatement of the tool name and does not differentiate from siblings that also involve merge requests (e.g., gitlab_create_merge_request, gitlab_approve_merge_request), but the action 'merge' is distinct enough.

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 such as gitlab_create_merge_request or gitlab_approve_merge_request. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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