update_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update merge request title and/or description' and 'Returns: Confirmation message', but it does not disclose whether the tool preserves unspecified fields, what happens if both title and description are null, or whether it requires write 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 compact, with a one-sentence opening, then a simple Args/Returns block. All sentences earn their place, and the purpose is front-loaded, despite the format being a bit verbose.

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?

With only 4 parameters, a straightforward action, and an output schema present, the description is mostly adequate. But it lacks edge-case details—like what happens when only one field is updated, or whether clearing a field requires an empty string or null—and provides no usage context relative to sibling MR tools.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond bare parameter names: 'project_id' becomes 'GitLab project ID' and 'mr_iid' becomes 'Merge request IID', and it notes that title/description are optional. However, it does not explain accepted formats, constraints (e.g., max length), or the effect of null vs. omitted values.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and a resource ('merge request title and/or description'), which is clear. While it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling update_merge_request_comment, the resource ('merge request title/description') makes the intended target obvious.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_merge_request, list_merge_requests, or add_merge_request_comment. It does not mention prerequisites, such as checking the current MR before updating, or how it relates to other update tools.

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