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 behavioral burden. It implies mutation but does not disclose permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are left untouched, whether close/reopen is reversible, or what the response looks like. For an 11-parameter mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words that quickly tells the agent the tool's scope. It is appropriately sized for a definition that leans on a fully documented schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the field-level detail is adequately covered. However, as a mutation tool with zero annotations, the definition omits behavioral context (auth, partial-update semantics, side effects) that an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 each parameter (including the labels-replaces-existing vs add_labels/remove_labels distinction and milestone_id=0 to unassign). The description merely repeats the field names and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (MR) and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, state, target branch, milestone, labels). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like accept_merge_request or create_merge_request, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., accept_merge_request, update_merge_request_discussion_note) and no prerequisites such as required permissions or MR state. The field list only implies that it modifies an existing MR.

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