bb_create_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the return behavior (created PR with id) and notes that reviewer is optional, but it does not mention permissions, branch-existence requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with the primary operation front-loaded and no wasted words. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 seven-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential operation and return value but leaves some parameter roles and failure conditions implicit. The self-explanatory parameter names mitigate the gaps, so it is minimally viable rather than comprehensive.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate, but it does not explain projectKey, repoSlug, title, or description. It adds reviewer optionality and source/destination branch roles, but these largely duplicate existing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: creating a new pull request from a source branch to a destination branch. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling PR operations like update, merge, decline, and approve.

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?

It clearly signals the use case: creating a new PR, which distinguishes it from tools that modify or act on existing PRs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'new PR' wording gives clear context.

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