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 carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool updates text, but it does not disclose permission requirements, whether edits are reversible, whether any user can edit any note, or other operational constraints 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. 'Update or edit' is slightly redundant, but the statement remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and five required parameters, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent. It identifies the operation but omits behavioral, permission, and side-effect context that structured fields do not cover.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters, including body, note_id, project_id, discussion_id, and merge_request_iid. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: updating/editing the text of an existing review comment in an MR discussion thread. It clearly distinguishes editing an existing note from creating or replying, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate further.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing review comment,' indicating this tool is for modifying a note that already exists. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus reply_merge_request_discussion, create_merge_request_note, or resolve_merge_request_discussion.

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