rebase_merge_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Rebase' indicates a mutating operation that rewrites commit history, but the description does not highlight potential side effects (e.g., force push, conflict handling, permission requirements) 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. No extraneous information is present.

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 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the rebase process, what happens on success/failure, or important caveats (e.g., rebase may be rejected if not allowed). The agent needs more context to use it safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema fields; it repeats 'rebase' but does not explain how each parameter (skip_ci, project_id, merge_request_iid) relates to the overall action.

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 action (rebase) and the resource (merge request onto target branch), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'merge_merge_request' or 'create_merge_request'. However, it could be more specific about what rebase implies (e.g., rewrites commit history).

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 vs alternatives like 'merge_merge_request' or 'update_merge_request'. The description does not mention prerequisites, conflict scenarios, or when rebase is preferred over merge.

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