haops_create_merge_request

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses auto-detection of conflicts, snapshotting commit SHAs, and return payload contents. Good detail, but could mention side effects or permissions. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, first states core purpose, second adds key behaviors and return value. No fluff, efficient, and front-loaded.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, description covers creation, conflict detection, and return info. Could be more precise about conflict handling (e.g., does creation proceed if conflicts exist?) and error conditions. Still fairly complete for a non-trivial tool.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 is 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?

Description explicitly states 'Create a merge request' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like close, merge, list by focusing on creation. It also adds unique details like auto-detecting conflicts and returning diff stats, making purpose very 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?

Implies use when creating a new merge request, but does not explicitly guide when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., merging, closing). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. Adequate but lacks explicit context.

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