runrunit_share_cursor_agent_bitbucket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the side effect (opens a PR), exact auth requirements (BITBUCKET_USERNAME and BITBUCKET_APP_PASSWORD on the MCP server host), auto-detection behavior (workspace, repo slug, base branch from git origin with env-var override), and a security rule ('Never pass credentials via this tool'). This is exemplary for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the usage trigger, the core PR behavior, the sibling alternative, and the auth/security constraints. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, alternative, auth, auto-detection, and parameter location comprehensively. The only gaps are the return value (e.g., PR URL) and error behavior if the agent file is absent from cursor-agents/, which are minor against all essential call information being present.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds context by tying agent_name to a markdown file under cursor-agents/ and confirming project_root is the git-origin detection point, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific trigger ('share a Cursor agent with the team through Bitbucket'), a concrete mechanism ('Opens a pull request with one markdown file from cursor-agents/'), and includes Portuguese example phrasings to aid recognition. The Bitbucket-via-PR behavior clearly distinguishes it from the generic-runrunit_share_cursor_agent sibling, and it explicitly names the install tool it is not.

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?

An explicit 'Use when' condition is front-loaded, and the description names runrunit_install_cursor_agents as the alternative for the local-copy scenario. It does not explicitly contrast against runrunit_share_cursor_agent (the non-Bitbucket sharing sibling), though the Bitbucket channel and PR mechanism make most routing decisions obvious.

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