create_merge_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that branches must exist and that the tool 'internally resolves the project UUID,' which clarifies the alias-based project parameter. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens on failure, leaving clear gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds useful information: the core purpose, a prerequisite, optional behaviors, and a hidden implementation detail. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters (6 required), all covered by schema descriptions. The description provides necessary prerequisites and options. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the created merge request object). For a create tool, the return is somewhat obvious, but the omission is a minor gap for a tool without annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between sourceBranch and targetBranch (both must exist), the optional nature of squashCommit and removeSourceBranch, and the fact that 'project' is an alias resolved internally. These enrich the bare schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new merge request to merge one branch into another.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_merge_request or merge_merge_request. It also states the core purpose of branch merging.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a new merge request) and includes a prerequisite: 'Both branches must exist in the project.' It also mentions optional flags (squash commits, auto-delete). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier examples.

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