create_merge_request_discussion

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool creates a discussion, but does not disclose whether it is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects it has. The user is left unaware of response behavior or constraints.

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 short sentence, which is concise but too sparse. It could include more context without becoming verbose. The structure is minimal and front-loaded, but lacks substance.

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 presence of a nested object parameter and sibling tools for similar purposes, the description should provide more context. Without annotations or output schema, the description fails to adequately inform the agent about expected return values or usage nuances.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a discussion on a merge request. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_merge_request_note', which also adds a comment. The verb 'create' and resource 'discussion' are specific, but the lack of distinction from similar tools leaves ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_merge_request_note' or 'list_merge_request_discussions'. The description offers no context for choosing this tool over others, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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