create_mr_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the critical behavioral constraint that code comments require all four line/path fields together, and general comments do not. This is valuable contextual behavior beyond a simple 'create' statement, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Still, the core behavior is clearly 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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameter combinations in a clear structured way. Every word earns its place, and the conditional guidance is easy to parse.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key decision point (general vs. code comment) effectively. It does not explain return values, but for a creation tool that is less critical. The absence of explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., 'use reply_mr_discussion for existing discussions') is a minor gap, but the tool name and overall context make it adequate.

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 input schema already describes every parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping parameters into two functional sets (general vs. code comment) and explicitly stating that the four line/path parameters must be provided together. This relationship is not evident from the schema alone, earning a higher score.

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+resource pair: "Start a new discussion on a merge request." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_mr_discussion (which adds to an existing thread) and list/get/discussion tools. It also immediately signals the core action without ambiguity.

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 concrete usage guidance by explaining two distinct modes: general comments (message only) and line-level code comments (all four path/line fields required together). This gives clear context for when certain parameters are needed, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one. The guidance is implied but not exclusionary.

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