Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The 'Returns' section mentions a confirmation or error message, but doesn't describe the format or common error scenarios. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each section serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific. There's no redundant information, making it efficient while covering the basics.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema, the description does an adequate job. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks important behavioral context (permissions, irreversibility) and doesn't leverage the output schema to describe return values more specifically. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but not enough for a higher score.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional if configured, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., what a 'repository slug' looks like) or constraints beyond what's implied by the schema types.

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 ('Delete') and target ('a comment from a Pull Request'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_branch' or 'delete_repository' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment-related tools like 'reply_to_comment' in terms of purpose.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), when deletion is appropriate (e.g., for cleanup vs. moderation), or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversibility). There's no comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_repository' or context about Bitbucket workflows.

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