rebase_merge_request

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it is asynchronous and has a dry-run mode. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like commit rewriting, conflict handling, or asynchronous completion behavior.

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?

Three sentences convey purpose, context, and default behavior with zero redundancy. Each sentence adds distinct value.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core action, use case, and key parameter behavior. It could mention the asynchronous nature more heavily, but it is fairly complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches param meaning: it warns that skip_ci is a Premium feature and recommends setting dry_run to false only after user confirmation. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 states the specific action: trigger an asynchronous rebase of the MR's source branch on top of the target branch. This is distinct from sibling tools like merge_merge_request or update_merge_request, and the verb–resource combination is precise.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Useful when CI requires a linear history before merge.' It also notes the dry_run default, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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