update_merge_request

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

The annotation 'openWorldHint' indicates potential side effects, but the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive action, permission needs, or consequences of updating a merge request in different states. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 very short (one sentence with a parenthetical), which is concise but lacks important details for a tool with 14 parameters. It could benefit from structured formatting or bullet points.

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 (14 parameters, no output schema, openWorldHint annotation), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall workflow, side effects, or typical usage patterns. The schema provides parameter details, but the description should integrate them into a coherent picture.

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 parameter meanings. The description adds that 'mergeRequestIid or branchName required', which is not reflected in the schema's required list (only project_id is required). This adds some context but is potentially misleading.

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 that the tool updates a merge request, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request' or 'create_merge_request', and the parenthetical about required parameters is helpful but not fully accurate.

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 alternatives such as 'create_merge_request' or 'get_merge_request'. It only includes a constraint about required parameters but does not explain the context of use.

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