bb_request

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: it says 'Call ANY Bitbucket Cloud 2.0 REST endpoint' and the schema explicitly allows POST, PUT, DELETE, and PATCH with a request body, yet readOnlyHint is true. This is a serious inconsistency that could cause an agent to believe all requests are safe and non-mutating. The description also does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or that responses may include raw/unprocessed bodies.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: base URL, placeholder substitution, endpoint discovery via bb_list_endpoints, pagination behavior, and the escape-hatch scope are all covered in five concise sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids repetition of schema fields.

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 generic raw-API tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the essential operational details: base path, placeholder substitution, pagination, and how to discover endpoint-specific paths. It could additionally mention authorization preconditions or error/rate-limit behavior, but the existing guidance plus schema is sufficient for most correct calls.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: paths are relative to the 2.0 base URL, placeholders must be replaced with real values, paginate=true follows Bitbucket's next links and merges all pages, and raw mode is relevant for diff/patch/log endpoints. This is solid added value for an agent selecting and invoking 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Call ANY Bitbucket Cloud 2.0 REST endpoint directly.' It clearly frames the tool as an escape hatch for endpoints not wrapped by purpose-built bb_* tools and enumerates examples (merges, pipelines, webhooks, permissions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use it for everything the purpose-built bb_* tools do not wrap, call bb_list_endpoints first to get paths and params, and enable paginate=true on list endpoints. It clearly conveys the fallback role but does not explicitly say to prefer a purpose-built tool when one exists, which is implied but not stated as a negative rule.

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