create_merge_request_note

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

Annotations include only 'openWorldHint: true', which suggests additional fields may exist. The description does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the note is a reply, required permissions, or if it overwrites existing notes. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries a heavier burden that it fails to meet.

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: a single sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity (adding a note) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the presence of many sibling note tools warrants more contextual guidance to help the agent choose 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'body' or the format of 'project_id').

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 ('add a new note') and resource ('merge request'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_issue_note' (issue) and 'create_draft_note' (draft), but not from 'create_merge_request_discussion_note', which could indicate a reply versus a top-level 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'create_merge_request_discussion_note' or 'create_note'. The description implies a general add-note function but lacks explicit usage criteria.

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