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 of disclosing behavior. It only says 'update' and repeats an identification constraint; it does not explain side effects, whether state changes are immediate, how state_event interacts, or what happens when multiple mutable fields are supplied.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, the parenthetical does not earn its place because it references a nonexistent parameter and could mislead an agent into looking for 'branchName'.

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 and no annotations or output schema, the description provides almost no contextual guidance about required combinations, how to target a merge request within a project, or how this update differs from merge actions on the same resource. The misleading identification note makes it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a misleading constraint: it names 'mergeRequestIid' and 'branchName', while the schema has 'merge_request_iid' and no 'branchName' parameter at all. This actively undermines parameter understanding instead of adding value.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update a merge request'), which is sufficient to distinguish it from creation or merging operations in the sibling list. However, the parenthetical about 'mergeRequestIid or branchName' introduces a name not present in the schema, causing mild ambiguity.

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 only usage guidance is an identification requirement ('Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided'), but 'branchName' is not a real parameter, and it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_merge_request, approve_merge_request, or update_merge_request_note.

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