create_merge_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that a new merge request is created, with no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens if branches are invalid or an MR already exists. For a mutating operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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 one clean sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, which is ideal for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers only a single high-level sentence. It does not explain key context such as which parameters are essential, how to select between project_id and target_project_id, or what the result of creation looks like. For a tool of this complexity, the description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.

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 13 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as how project_id and target_project_id relate or how draft interacts with other settings. Reaching baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('merge request') scoped to a GitLab project, making the core action immediately clear. It is also distinguishable from siblings such as update_merge_request and merge_merge_request because it explicitly says 'new', so an agent can tell creation apart from modification or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_merge_request, merge_merge_request, or create_draft_note. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred or which use cases are out of scope. Given the large set of merge-request-related siblings, this gap is material.

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