create_draft_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that a draft note is unpublished until explicitly published, what side effects occur, whether authentication/permissions are needed, or how this interacts with discussions.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a top-level purpose statement, though it could have added one clause about the draft/unpublished nature without becoming bloated.

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 complex nested position schema, six parameters, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits operational context such as requiring project_id and merge_request_iid to target a merge request, and the draft-then-publish workflow.

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 schema already documents all parameters including nested position fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's rich details, which puts it at baseline.

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 'Create a draft note for a merge request' identifies a specific verb, resource, and target context. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like create_merge_request_note or publish_draft_note.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_merge_request_note, publish_draft_note, or bulk_publish_draft_notes. Without exclusions or context, an agent must infer the appropriate usage from the tool name alone.

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