mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying mutation), which aligns with the 'Update' action. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it explains the optimistic locking mechanism using the 'version' parameter and specifies that the 'reviewers' parameter replaces the existing list. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like error conditions or authentication requirements.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded with essential information and structured efficiently.

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 (mutation with optimistic locking), the description provides complete context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral constraints. With annotations covering read/write status, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), no additional explanation of parameters or return values is needed.

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 semantic context by explaining the purpose of the 'version' parameter ('for optimistic locking') and clarifying that 'reviewers' replaces existing ones, but most parameter details are already in the schema. This meets 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 specific action ('Update a pull request's title, description, or reviewers') and the resource ('pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bitbucket_create_pull_request or bitbucket_get_pull_request. It specifies exactly what fields can be modified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Update a pull request's title, description, or reviewers') and provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires the current PR `version` number for optimistic locking — fetch it first using bitbucket_get_pull_request'). It names the specific alternative tool (bitbucket_get_pull_request) for obtaining required data, offering complete guidance.

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