bb_update_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful semantics: omitted fields are left unchanged, and the updated PR is returned. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, reviewer replacement semantics, or any side effects beyond the update itself.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: what is updated, the omitted-field behavior, and the return value.

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 relatively simple partial-update operation, the description covers purpose, patch semantics, and return value. However, with no output schema and no annotations, more detail about reviewer add/remove behavior and required identifiers would improve completeness. The schema partially fills these 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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate for under-documented parameters. It names 'title/description/reviewers' but does not explicitly map to reviewerAdd/reviewerRemove, and it does not explain the required identifier parameters (projectKey, repoSlug, id) or their role in addressing the PR. The partial-update note is helpful but insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('a PR'), and enumerates the exact aspects being updated (title/description/reviewers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, merge, decline, approve, or list pull requests.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'Update title/description/reviewers of a PR' suggests modifying an existing PR versus creating or merging it. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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