update_merge_request_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states that the note is modified. It does not say whether the body is fully replaced, whether identifiers are required even though they are optional in the schema, what permissions are needed, or what happens to the existing note.

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 phrasing is tight and readable, but it mostly restates the tool name and contains no concrete details about what 'modify' entails. It is minimal rather than usefully concise.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits update semantics, selection among several note-related sibling tools, and any caveats about project/merge-request/note identifiers; an agent would have to infer or guess several call conditions.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents body, note_id, project_id, and merge_request_iid. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?

Uses a clear action ('modify') and resource ('existing merge request note'), so an agent can tell it apart from create/delete note tools. It does not, however, distinguish it from closely named siblings such as update_merge_request_discussion_note or update_draft_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?

The description gives no guidance on when this tool should be chosen instead of create_merge_request_note, delete_merge_request_note, update_merge_request_discussion_note, or draft-note variants. Usage context is only implied by the word 'existing'.

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