haops_merge_merge_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks branch protection rules, required approvals, allowed roles, and conflicts before merging, and supports two merge strategies. It does not mention error handling or source branch deletion behavior, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial.

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 with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core function and preconditions; the second adds supported merge types. Information density is high 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at return values or success/failure indicators. The 5 parameters are well-documented, but the agent lacks information on what to expect after the merge, which is a gap for actionable use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema descriptions. The mention of merge strategies provides context but is not parameter-specific.

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 clearly identifies the action (merge) and resource (merge request) with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like close, reopen, review, get, and list by explicitly stating it performs merging with precondition checks.

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?

The description implies that the merge request should be approved and that pre-merge checks are performed, providing some usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., 'use close_merge_request if you want to cancel without merging').

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