bitbucket_add_pr_comment

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

The description indicates a mutation via 'Add', but discloses no behavioral traits such as whether the comment is appended, if notifications are sent, or if there are any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description fails to compensate.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the basic purpose without fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve clarity.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a similar sibling tool, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain the nature of a 'general comment' or provide any detail about the expected outcome or error states.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. It does not clarify the relationship between parameters or the concept of a 'general comment' beyond the schema.

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 'Add' and the resource 'general comment' on a 'pull request'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'bitbucket_add_pr_inline_comment', leaving ambiguity about what 'general' means compared to inline comments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the inline comment tool, nor are there prerequisites or context conditions mentioned. This leaves the agent without direction for proper invocation.

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