bitbucket_pull_request_create

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

The annotations provide only negative hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the draft state, visibility to teammates, and that the PR remains not-ready until marked ready in Bitbucket. It does not cover authorization or error behavior, but the core state transition is 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?

A single sentence front-loads the primary action and then adds the essential draft-state nuance. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and only minimal annotation value. The description covers high-level selection but leaves required parameter behavior, defaults for the workflow, and invocation details under-explained, forcing the schema and the agent to do the heavy lifting.

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 no parameter-level meaning; it never mentions repoSlug, title, sourceBranch, reviewers, workspace, description, or destinationBranch. With schema description coverage at only 57% and the required title and sourceBranch properties lacking descriptions, this is a meaningful gap.

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 explicitly identifies the exact action and resource ('Create a new pull request') and adds the unique draft state ('as a draft'). This differentiates it from the sibling list/get/read tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 draft and 'not-yet-ready-for-review' language imply the intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for work-in-progress pull requests.

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