create_merge_request

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse `openWorldHint` annotation: it creates remote review state, requires project access, and returns either the new merge request or a validation/permission/branch/duplicate-related error. It does not go into exhaustive detail like reversibility or rate limits, but it gives an agent a clear picture of the operation's side effects and failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, usage, then behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information—what the tool does and when to use it—appears first.

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 tool's 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, when to use it, required access, and likely error categories. It does not detail the response structure beyond 'returns the new merge request', but that is still enough for an agent to understand the primary outcome. Minor gaps like exact permission scopes and response fields prevent a perfect score.

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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds only a small amount of semantic framing around branches ('existing source branch' and 'target branch'), but it does not meaningfully improve on the property descriptions already present in the input 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 verb and resource: 'Create a new merge request' and specifies the exact operation scope: opening a merge request from an existing source branch to a target branch. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling `update_merge_request`, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.

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?

It gives direct usage guidance: use this tool to open a new merge request, and use `update_merge_request` after the request exists. This explicit when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance leaves little room for confusion.

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