update_merge_request_note

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

The description discloses that it changes remote state, requires permissions, and may return specific error types (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit). This adds value beyond the openWorldHint annotation and sets expectations for side effects.

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 moderately concise but has some redundancy (e.g., 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented' adds little). It front-loads the core purpose, but the latter half is somewhat generic. Could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, but description covers error behavior (validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit). However, it doesn't clarify what 'modify' does (e.g., replaces body only, supports replies?), and note_id semantics are vague ('The ID of a thread note' doesn't explain how to obtain it). Mixed completeness.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds a note about numeric ID or URL-encoded path, which is helpful but only partially matches schema (mentions group_id which isn't in schema). No additional semantic value for body, note_id, or merge_request_iid.

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 'Modify an existing merge request note' with a specific verb and resource, which immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes from create tools by explicitly mentioning 'existing' vs. new resources, though some siblings like update_merge_request thread notes exist.

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 says to use this for existing resources and to choose a create tool instead for new notes, which provides some differentiation. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude other related tools like get_merge_request_note or delete_merge_request_note, leaving the 'when not to use' partly ambiguous.

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