update_merge_request

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

The description says 'Update' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like closing/reopening (state_event) or other side effects. Annotations provide openWorldHint but no destructiveHint, so the description adds little 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient but lacks structured detail.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not cover how to use the tool effectively, such as which parameters are commonly used together, or what response to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, only noting that merge_request_iid or source_branch is required, which is already partially in the schema (required only 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 verb 'update' and the resource 'merge request'. It also mentions required parameters. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like approve_merge_request or merge_merge_request, so it's not a 5.

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 versus alternatives. The description only notes required parameters, not when it's appropriate to update vs other operations like approve or merge.

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