runrunit_share_cursor_skill_bitbucket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well: it reveals the external side effect (opens a shared-repo PR), the scoped write (adds/updates one folder in an atomic commit), the credential prerequisite (Bitbucket credentials on MCP host), and target resolution (repo and base branch auto-detected from project_root git origin with env overrides). It stops short of disclosing failure modes or what happens on existing branches/PRs.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary-use declaration, then mechanism, then exclusion and requirements — each sentence carries a distinct job. The multilingual trigger list lengthens the description, but the phrases are functional for cross-language intent matching rather than padding.

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 side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential calling context: what the PR contains, what it requires (credentials), and how the target repo/branch is chosen. Missing details like the return shape (PR URL) and behavior when no git remote exists are the only gaps.

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 both parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description adds marginal value by tying skill_name to the physical folder cursor-skills/{skill_name}/ and clarifying that project_root feeds the git-origin detection of repo identity and base branch.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+mechanism: sharing a Cursor skill via Bitbucket by 'opens a pull request that adds or updates the full cursor-skills/{skill_name}/ folder'. Multilingual trigger phrases (Portuguese and English) sharpen intent matching, and naming the folder scope (SKILL.md, rules/, templates/, scripts/) differentiates it from the agent-sharing siblings.

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?

Explicitly declares itself the 'Primary tool' for the Bitbucket sharing use case and gives a direct when-not rule: 'Do not use runrunit_install_cursor_skills for this — that only copies folders to local ~/.cursor/skills.' The exclusion names the exact sibling most likely to be confused and states the reason. Only minor gap: it does not contrast with runrunit_share_cursor_skill (non-Bitbucket path), but the via-Bitbucket condition already routes that decision.

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