bitbucket_update_pull_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is an update (mutation) but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, success/failure responses, or side effects. The constraint about required fields is noted, but overall transparency is low.

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 sentence followed by a critical usage constraint. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. No unnecessary 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?

Despite good annotations and schema coverage, the description lacks information about return values, error handling, or behavior on invalid input. With no output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the response format or side effects, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 value by stating that at least one of the optional fields (title, description, destinationBranch) must be provided, which is a constraint not explicit in the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond this.

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 an existing pull request and lists the specific fields (title, description, destination branch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get or create. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, which would earn a 5.

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?

The description mentions that at least one of title, description, or destinationBranch must be provided, which is a helpful constraint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other PR-related tools (e.g., get, create), nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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