Update MR Discussion Note

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description only restates the update action without adding behavioral details such as side effects on timestamps, thread resolution changes, or whether partial updates are allowed. It fails to add value beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks key details. It's front-loaded with the action, but the brevity undermines clarity for an agent that needs more context to use the tool accurately.

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 (6 parameters, mutation, no output schema) and the sparse description, the agent cannot fully understand prerequisites, return behavior, or how to perform a successful update. The description omits important context like parameter relationships, idempotency, and error conditions.

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 for 6 parameters, the description must compensate but mentions only 'body' and 'resolved'. It does not clarify the meaning or necessity of the three required parameters (merge_request_iid, discussion_id, note_id) or the optional project_id. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly map inputs.

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 note body/resolved state in MR discussion' clearly specifies the action (update), resource (note within a merge request discussion), and the aspects that can be changed (body, resolved state). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like create or delete discussion notes, as well as from tools that update standalone MR 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_update_merge_request_note or gitlab_resolve_merge_request_thread. There are no usage cues, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context 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.