update_draft_note

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

With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only states the mutation. It omits whether this is a partial update, which identifiers are needed, or how resolve_discussion behaves, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded with the core verb and object, with no filler. However, for a tool with six parameters and a deeply nested position schema, this is under-specification rather than ideal concision.

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 does not explain the GitLab merge-request draft-note context, the identifiers needed to target a draft note, or how updating relates to publishing drafts. Given the complex input schema and absence of annotations or an output schema, an agent is left with too much unresolved context.

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%, and the schema thoroughly documents all six parameters plus the nested position object. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries that burden.

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 identifies the operation as updating an existing draft note, naming both the action and the resource. It does not differentiate this from sibling draft-note tools like create_draft_note, publish_draft_note, or delete_draft_note, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 update versus create, publish, delete, or list draft notes, and no mention of alternatives. The word 'existing' only implies that the draft note must already have been created; it does not provide conditions or exclusions.

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