create_merge_request_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention permissions, notification effects, whether discussions can be deleted or edited, or any constraints such as MR state requirements. The description only states the basic action without revealing behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence of seven words, which is efficient. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could be expanded slightly to include value-adding details without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of a complex nested parameter (position), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to handle errors, or the difference between note and discussion. For a tool with no output schema and a nested object, more context is needed.

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 input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new discussion on a merge request', which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool create_merge_request_note, as both involve adding content to a merge request. The description lacks context on what makes a discussion distinct from a note.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a note or starting a discussion with a diff position. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description simply states the action without helping the agent decide when it is appropriate.

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