bb_write_file

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

The description correctly indicates a mutating operation, consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it adds little beyond the annotations; it does not mention commit behavior, overwrite semantics, or other side effects that could matter to an agent.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's core purpose.

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 full parameter schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient for a straightforward write operation. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that the write creates a commit, but the schema already covers branch and commit message defaults.

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 six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning or usage detail, keeping this at the baseline.

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 specific action ('Write or update') and a precise resource ('a file in a Bitbucket repository'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like bb_read_file and bb_delete_file.

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 the tool is used when a file needs to be created or modified in Bitbucket, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools for reading or deleting files.

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