Update Pull Request

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that it requires version for locking, which is important behavioral context. The schema further notes reviewers replace existing, but the description itself doesn't mention replacement, so slightly less 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?

Two sentences only: first states purpose, second provides critical prerequisite. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.

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 simple update tool with output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a key behavioral note (version). It could mention partial update semantics or error conditions, but it is largely complete 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the version parameter (optimistic locking, where to fetch), which goes beyond the schema's own description.

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 tool updates a pull request's title, description, or reviewers, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitbucket_create_pull_request or bitbucket_get_pull_request.

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 tells the agent it requires the PR version for optimistic locking and instructs to fetch it first using bitbucket_get_pull_request. This provides clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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