Update Merge Request

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

The description does not add any behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It fails to mention effects like state transitions, permission requirements, or idempotency concerns that could affect tool selection.

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 (one short sentence), which is efficient but too minimal. It lacks front-loading of key points and structure; all important details are absent.

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 (14 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to clarify return behavior, prerequisites, or how the update affects merge request state, making it inadequate for correct agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries no parameter information. The schema has 14 complex parameters (e.g., 'draft', 'labels', 'state_event') but the description does not explain their meaning, valid values, or typical usage, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Update merge request fields' clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (merge request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_create_merge_request' and 'gitlab_merge_merge_request' by specifying modification rather than creation or merging. However, it lacks specificity on which fields are updatable.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create or merge). No prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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