cancel_merge_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral outcome (status becomes CANCELLED) and implies author-only action via 'withdrawn by the author'. It could add more about reversibility or permissions, but core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple cancel operation with fully documented params, the description covers purpose, outcome, and usage distinction. While no output schema is provided, the state change is the essential return information.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to add param details. It adds no extra param semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool cancels (withdraws) a merge request, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from close_merge_request, establishing unique purpose.

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 explicitly advises using close_merge_request for MRs reviewed and rejected by others, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria.

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