bb_create_pull_request

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

The description adds no behavior beyond the annotations: it only restates the core operation. It fails to disclose side effects such as creating a remote pull request, the default close_source_branch=true behavior that deletes the source branch on merge, or any required authentication/permissions.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and object. It is appropriately concise for a simple creation tool.

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 the output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for basic invocation, but it leaves out usage context and behavioral side effects. It is adequate but not complete for a mutation tool with 7 parameters.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters and their defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (a new pull request in a Bitbucket repository), distinguishing it from siblings like bb_create_repository and bb_create_branch. The specificity of 'pull request' also separates it from read/list PR tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when creating a PR instead of an issue or branch is appropriate, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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