merge_pull_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the safety gate (dangerous flag) and implies a write/destructive operation, which is useful. However, it omits key traits: deletion of the source branch by default, irreversibility, and permission requirements—all relevant for a merge mutation.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It includes the critical availability constraint inline, though more structure could have been useful given the mutation's complexity.

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 destructive write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and default behavior (source branch deletion) not mentioned, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to inspect schema defaults to understand consequences, and important behavioral aspects like irreversibility and defaults are absent.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Merge a pull request') that clearly distinguishes it from all siblings like create_pull_request or decline_pull_request. An agent immediately knows the action being performed.

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 precondition (BITBUCKET_ENABLE_DANGEROUS=true) hints at when the tool is available, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or what conditions must hold (e.g., approvals required). Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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