bitbucket_add_pull_request_comment

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

No annotations exist, so description must be self-sufficient. It states it returns a JSON string of comment details and raises ValueError if client is not configured. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. Basic but not deeply transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clean parameter list and return/error info. No extraneous content, but could be slightly more compact.

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 simple add comment tool with an output schema (context signals indicate output schema exists), the description is functionally complete. However, it does not explicitly clarify that this is a general comment (as opposed to inline or blocker), which is implied by sibling names but not stated.

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 coverage is 100% and input schema descriptions mirror the description text. The description adds no new meaning beyond required field names and types (e.g., workspace, repository, pull_request_id, comment). No examples, constraints, or format details are included.

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 specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'blocker_comment' and 'inline_comment' which are specialized comment types.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling comment tools (e.g., blocker or inline). No prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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