close_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that closing does not merge and preserves the source branch, adding useful behavior. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or effects on discussions/approvals, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides distinct value: action, side effect, usage/alternative. No fluff.

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 tool with 3 fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and key side effect. It also differentiates from a sibling. Minor lack of return value expectations, but overall sufficient for correct selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (mr_id, owner, project). The description adds no extra param context, but none is needed given the schema is self-explanatory. 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 closes a merge request without merging, specifying the resource (merge request) and distinguishing it from merging. It also notes the source branch is preserved, making the action specific and unambiguous.

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 states when to use: when proposed changes are no longer needed or were rejected. It also names an alternative (cancel_merge_request) for withdrawing your own MR, providing clear when-not guidance.

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