create_pr_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE tool' reinforces but does not add new information. However, it adds a useful behavioral detail: 'Requires non-empty content — validated before any Bitbucket call.' This discloses the validation step and pre-call behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary action, then states the validation requirement, and finally labels the tool's nature. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 write tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created comment object), error conditions, or the roles of the other parameters. While the schema covers required fields, the lack of descriptions and output details leaves the agent under-informed for a successful call.

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 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It only mentions 'content' (non-empty requirement) and does not clarify the purpose or format of repo, pr_id, or workspace. The property names give some hint, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent guessing on the other three parameters.

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 action: 'Posts a new comment on a pull request.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name itself distinguishes it from listing comments (list_pr_comments) or other PR operations. It also labels itself as a WRITE tool, which further clarifies its role.

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 implies when to use it (to add a comment) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention that listing comments should be done with list_pr_comments, nor does it describe any prerequisites beyond non-empty content. The usage context is inferred from the name and action, not explicitly stated.

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