create_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 behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions required, whether creating the MR triggers pipelines or notifications, what the draft/squash/remove_source_branch flags actually do at creation time, or what happens on failure (e.g. duplicate open MR for the same branch pair). 'Update' is implied mutation but nothing about side effects or reversibility is disclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence, which is good for front-loading, but the second half ('with description and options') is vague padding that consumes space without adding information. Nothing is left ambiguous by length alone, but little value is delivered per word.

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?

This is an 11-parameter, 7-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description is one shallow sentence. It should at minimum state prerequisites and mutation side effects; given the complexity, the definition is inadequate for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including defaults and format examples for project_id. The description's phrase 'with description and options' adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a merge request') and adds scoping detail ('between branches'), which separates it from sibling tools like update_merge_request, get_merge_request, and accept_merge_request purely on reading the name. The trailing 'with description and options' is filler that dilutes rather than sharpens the purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. push access, branch must exist), and no routing to alternatives for the closely related operations in the sibling list (accept_merge_request, update_merge_request, list_merge_requests). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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