merge_merge_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The one-line description gives no information about side effects, required permissions, or what happens after merge (e.g., closing the request, triggering pipelines). This is opaque for a mutation operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks essential details. True conciseness would include critical information without fluff; here it is under-specified, offering no structure or key points beyond the tool name.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains parameters like squash, merge_commit_message, etc. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 'Merge a merge request' clearly states the verb and resource, but provides no specificity about what merging entails. It is not a tautology but adds minimal value beyond the tool name. Among siblings like approve_merge_request or create_merge_request, it is clear but undifferentiated.

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 such as 'set_auto_merge' or 'approve_merge_request'. There are no exclusions or contextual hints about prerequisites or conditions for merging.

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