bb_create_pull_request_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutation ('Add a comment') and explains the difference between general and inline comments, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the action.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line summary followed by a list of parameters. It is slightly lengthy but front-loads the purpose. Could be more concise by avoiding repetition of parameter names already in schema.

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?

Given 7 parameters (2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the two modes (general vs inline) and covers the necessary parameters. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role of inline parameters (inline_path, inline_from, inline_to) and defaults for workspace and repo. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description clarifies usage context for inline vs general comments.

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 verb (Add), resource (comment to a Bitbucket pull request), and distinguishes between general and inline comments. It differentiates from siblings like bb_delete_pull_request_comment and bb_edit_pull_request_comment.

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 usage for adding comments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on when not to use it or what prerequisites exist.

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