update_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, but it repeats information already present in the schema (mr_uuid description and required fields). It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved or overwritten, permission requirements, reversibility, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences: first states the action and scope, second gives a key prerequisite with a pointer to the correct identifier, and third clarifies required fields. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary 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?

The description covers purpose and the UUID prerequisite, but lacks important context regarding how the update behaves for omitted optional fields (e.g., does it clear description?), potential side effects, or return data. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves behavioral gaps that an agent may need to resolve.

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%: every parameter is described in the input schema. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, only restating that title and targetBranch are required. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 updates a merge request's title, description, target branch, and squash/remove-branch settings, distinguishing it from sibling operations like approve, merge, close, or cancel. It names the specific resource and actionable fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides a clear context for use by stating the MR UUID requirement and directing the agent to get it from get_merge_request's 'id' field. It also mentions that title and targetBranch are always required, which helps avoid invalid calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_merge_request, though the action is self-evident.

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