update_merge_request_discussion_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. 'Update' only signals mutation and gives no information about side effects, authorization requirements, whether the note can be resolved/unresolved via the resolved parameter, or how the tool interacts with the discussion thread. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no filler, and the subject-verb-object structure is front-loaded and easy to scan. It is concise, although the brevity contributes to the missing guidance captured in other dimensions.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the required relationships among discussion_id, note_id, and merge_request_iid, nor what happens on success or failure. An agent would need more context to invoke this tool reliably.

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 six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the generic 'update a discussion note' phrase, keeping it at the 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a discussion note on a merge request'), which maps directly to the tool name and distinguishes it from non-discussion note tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with update_merge_request_note, but the 'discussion note' qualifier makes its scope reasonably clear.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as update_merge_request_note, update_draft_note, or create_merge_request_discussion_note. The phrase 'discussion note' implies a context, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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