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 mentions that it returns a 'Confirmation or error message', which hints at the outcome but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting linked content). For a destructive operation, this is insufficient detail.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a snippet'), followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it clear and easy to scan.

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 (destructive operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical details like permissions, irreversibility, and error conditions. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to compensate for missing annotations.

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 lists the parameters ('snippet_id' and 'workspace') and notes that workspace is optional if configured, adding context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain what a 'snippet_id' is (e.g., format, where to find it) or how the optional workspace interacts with configuration, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a snippet'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_branch', 'delete_repository', or 'delete_tag', which all follow the same pattern. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes deleting a snippet unique in this context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing snippet permissions), when deletion is appropriate, or how it relates to other tools like 'get_snippet' or 'list_snippets'. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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