mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (indicating a write operation), which aligns with 'Post' in the description. The description adds context about comment types (general, reply, inline) beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether comments are editable/deletable. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently elaborates on comment types without redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but remains focused and waste-free.

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 moderate complexity (8 parameters, write operation) and rich schema (100% coverage, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main functionality and comment variations, though lacks details on error conditions or response format, which are mitigated by the output schema.

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%, with clear parameter documentation (e.g., 'text' supports Markdown, 'parent_id' for replies, 'file_path' and 'line' for inline comments). The description adds minimal value beyond schema, mentioning comment types that map to parameters like 'parent_id' and 'file_path', but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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 ('Post a comment') and resource ('on a pull request'), with additional specificity about comment types (general, replies, inline code comments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_comments' (which retrieves comments) but doesn't explicitly contrast with other comment-related tools that might exist elsewhere.

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 implies usage contexts (posting general comments, replying, adding inline comments) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing pull request access) or exclusions (e.g., not for editing existing comments).

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