comment_on_mr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature through the requirement 'GITLAB_READ_ONLY=false e token com escopo api' and clarifies the non-anchored behavior. It doesn't mention response format or side effects, but for a simple comment-publishing tool this is adequate and non-contradictory.

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 compact — two sentences that cover purpose, usage, exclusions, and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 documented params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and a critical prerequisite. It omits a return-value description, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking this tool. Slightly better than average.

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 informative descriptions for all parameters (iid, body, project). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with 'Publica um comentário geral no merge request, sem âncora em código' — a specific verb (publica), a clear resource (merge request), and a scope qualifier (sem âncora) that explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tools for line comments and thread replies.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use para resumo de review, dúvida ampla ou aprovação informal') and names the exact alternatives for other use cases ('comment_on_mr_line' and 'reply_to_mr_discussion'). This is textbook usage guidance.

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