bitbucket_create_pull_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it raises ValueError if client is not configured, but does not mention other potential failures (e.g., missing branches, duplicate PRs). It also does not state the effect (creation/mutation) explicitly or any side effects.

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 concise with a clear list of arguments. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter list, return type, and errors. However, the 'Args' section could be 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?

Given the schema coverage and presence of output schema (not shown), the description provides basic completeness. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, which are important for a creation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names and types but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'source_branch: Source branch name' is identical to the schema description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new pull request.' It lists the required parameters and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the verb 'create' and the specific parameters distinguish it from other PR-related tools like bitbucket_add_pull_request_comment.

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 alternatives, such as bitbucket_list_pull_requests or bitbucket_get_pull_request. It does not mention prerequisites like the existence of branches or repository, nor does it specify situations where creation would fail.

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