Atlassian Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a write operation ('Creates'), requires specific permissions ('repository write permissions'), and indicates the return value ('Returns a success message'). It doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits, but covers the essential mutation nature and auth needs adequately.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action, the second lists parameters and permissions, and the third specifies the return. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, permissions, and return value. However, it lacks details on error handling, side effects, or specific constraints (e.g., branch naming rules), which would be beneficial for full completeness.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists the parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it repeats parameter names and basic purposes). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 specific action ('Creates a new branch') and resource ('in a specified Bitbucket repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bb_list_branches (which lists branches) and bb_diff_branches (which compares branches). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to create a new branch) and mentions the prerequisite of 'repository write permissions.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., bb_list_branches for viewing branches instead of creating).

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