merge_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility and required MR state, but lacks details about permissions, exact side effects, and return behavior.

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: purpose, requirements, and caution. No filler, front-loaded, and 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?

Covers the core action, preconditions, optionality, and irreversibility. However, with no output schema or annotations, it doesn't describe what happens on success or failure, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that commit messages are optional and for merge/squash commits, but this is minimal additional value 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 the action: 'Perform the actual merge of a merge request into its target branch.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and 'actual merge' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve_merge_request' and 'close_merge_request'.

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 preconditions ('MR must be in OPEN status and have no conflicts') and mentions optional custom commit messages, which guides usage. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it evident this is the final merge step.

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