bitbucket_add_pull_request_blocker_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action and error conditions (ValueError for missing client). It omits behavioral details such as permission requirements, whether the comment is appended or replaces, side effects, rate limits, or state changes – essential for safe agent invocation.

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 contains useful sections (Args, Returns, Raises) but is somewhat redundant – the Args block largely duplicates the schema descriptions. The Raises section is helpful but could be more succinct. Overall, it wastes space on repetition.

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?

The description covers the basic action, parameters, return value, and error for a simple tool. However, it lacks context about the tool's position among siblings and does not explain the 'blocker' specificity. Given the presence of a detailed output schema (not shown here), the return description is sufficient, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section repeats parameter names and types but adds negligible new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'comment: Comment text' is identical to schema). It does add default for severity, but that is already in schema. No extra syntax, format, or constraint details.

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 'Add a comment to a pull request' with a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'bitbucket_add_pull_request_comment' – the 'blocker' aspect is only in the name, not in the description, which limits clarity for distinguishing use cases.

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 'bitbucket_add_pull_request_comment' or 'bitbucket_add_pull_request_inline_comment'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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