mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, implying a write operation, which aligns with 'create'. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this. It doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., notifications to reviewers), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., invalid branches). With annotations covering only read/write status, the description fails to provide rich behavioral insights.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists key parameters without redundancy. Every sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 creating a pull request (a write operation with 7 parameters), the description is minimal. Annotations cover read/write status, and an output schema exists (though not shown), reducing the need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool, more context on behavior (e.g., success criteria, error handling) would improve completeness, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minor context by mentioning optional description and reviewers, but this is already covered in the schema. No additional semantic details (e.g., format examples beyond schema) are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new pull request') and specifies the core operation (from `from_ref` to `to_ref`), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' or 'bitbucket_update_pull_request'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bitbucket_post_pull_request_comment' in terms of creating versus commenting, though the verb 'create' is specific enough.

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., existing branches), compare to sibling tools like 'bitbucket_update_pull_request' for modifications, or specify contexts where it's appropriate (e.g., after feature development). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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