create_merge_request_discussion_note

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

The description mentions 'Add' implying a mutation, but without readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., notifications, resolution status). It does not explain behavior if the thread doesn't exist or is resolved, leaving the agent uninformed about potential errors.

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 communicates the core action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (5 parameters, many siblings) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits context about thread existence, return value, and typical usage patterns, leaving the agent with gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without improvement.

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 'Add a new discussion note to an existing merge request thread' clearly specifies the action (add), the resource (discussion note), and the context (existing merge request thread). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'create_merge_request_thread' (which creates a new thread) and 'create_merge_request_note' (which likely creates a top-level note not in a thread).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., 'create_merge_request_thread', 'create_issue_note', 'resolve_merge_request_thread'). It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., thread must exist) or when not to use it.

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