bb_create_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'create' action is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Since annotations already cover the basic safety profile, the description provides little additional value.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and does not waste words, though it is minimal to the point of being sparse.

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 tool with six parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description is thin. It does not mention the repo detection default (though that is in the schema) or any expected return behavior. The schema fills some gaps, but the description could provide more context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 100%, so all six parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear verb ('create') and resource ('an issue in a Bitbucket repository'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_create_pull_request. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core action, though it does not mention the repository context beyond the generic phrase.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bb_create_pull_request or bb_create_branch. The description does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this the preferred choice.

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