gitlab_create_merge_request

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the clear warning that it's not idempotent and creates a new MR each call, which aligns with and reinforces the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes important warnings and examples in a structured manner. Slightly more structured formatting could improve it, but it's efficient.

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 has 7 parameters (1 required), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: non-idempotence, duplicate avoidance, and alternative tools. It does not mention permissions or return values, but the output schema exists, so it's fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description provides examples that illustrate parameter usage but does not add significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 it creates a merge request from source_branch to target_branch. It distinguishes from siblings by advising not to use for merging an open MR (use gitlab_merge_mr) and suggesting to check existing MRs via gitlab_list_merge_requests to avoid duplicates.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (create a new MR), when not to use (don't use to merge an open MR), and suggests checking for duplicates first via gitlab_list_merge_requests. Also names the alternative gitlab_merge_mr for merging.

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