Atlassian 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 effectively describes key behaviors: the mutation nature ('Adds'), authentication requirements ('Requires Bitbucket credentials with write permissions'), default behavior ('If workspaceSlug is not provided, the system will use your default workspace'), and output format ('Returns a success message as formatted Markdown'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers the essential behavioral traits well.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It starts with the core purpose, then explains parameter usage scenarios, and ends with authentication requirements. Every sentence provides essential information that helps the agent understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, parameter usage, authentication needs, and output format. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling tool differentiation, but given the comprehensive parameter explanations and behavioral transparency, it's nearly complete for this complexity level.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some contextual meaning about parameter relationships (e.g., parentId for replying, inline for code comments) and the workspaceSlug default behavior, but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Adds a comment'), target resource ('to a specific pull request'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_ls_pr_comments (which lists comments) and bb_update_pr (which modifies the PR itself). It's precise about what this tool does versus other PR-related tools.

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 clear context about when to use certain parameters (e.g., 'To reply to an existing comment, provide its ID in the parentId parameter' and 'For inline code comments, provide both inline.path and inline.line'), but doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this tool versus alternatives like bb_update_pr for general PR modifications or bb_ls_pr_comments for viewing comments. It gives good parameter-specific guidance but lacks sibling tool comparison.

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