Atlassian Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (requests changes), requires Bitbucket credentials with appropriate permissions, returns formatted Markdown confirmation, and affects PR status (marks as requiring changes). It doesn't mention rate limits or whether the action is reversible, but covers most essential aspects.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core action with parameters, second explains the behavioral effect, third covers authentication and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the action's effect, authentication requirements, and return format. It could be more complete by explicitly stating this is a write operation (though implied) and mentioning any potential side effects, but covers most essential context given the complexity.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the workspaceSlug default behavior (also in schema) and connects parameters to the action context. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what's in the structured fields.

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 ('Requests changes on a pull request'), identifies the target resource ('in a repository'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_approve_pr and bb_update_pr by specifying it marks the PR as requiring changes. 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 about when to use this tool (to indicate feedback needs addressing before merging) and mentions workspace defaults, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like bb_approve_pr for contrasting scenarios. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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