create_pull_request

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 clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and mentions the default behavior for 'close_source_branch', but doesn't cover authentication requirements, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if the source branch doesn't exist. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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 (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more detailed given the lack of output schema. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter documentation but lacks important contextual information about authentication, error handling, and the full structure of returned data. The 'Returns' section mentions only 'id, url, and state' without specifying data types or additional fields that might be included.

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 adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose with examples (e.g., 'repo_slug: Repository slug (e.g., "anzsic_classifier")') and clarifies default values and formats (e.g., 'description: PR description in markdown'), fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Create a pull request') and target resource ('in a Bitbucket repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'merge_pull_request' or 'get_pull_request' that perform different operations on pull requests. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope specification.

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_branch_restriction' or 'create_commit_status', nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for successful use. 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.