Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The description mentions the return format but lacks behavioral context beyond the basic 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 for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. While somewhat lengthy due to parameter explanations, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 complexity of a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description does well by thoroughly documenting parameters and mentioning the return format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks behavioral context like permission requirements or error handling.

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 provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, and specific values (e.g., state options like 'new', 'open', 'resolved'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds significant value beyond the bare input 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'existing issue', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'get_issue' beyond the obvious difference in action.

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 like 'create_issue' or 'get_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or workspace configuration. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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