bitbucket_merge_pull_request

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does the most important part: it flags irreversibility and the confirm gate, and discloses version-selection behavior and the available merge strategies. It stops short of stating permission requirements, what happens on conflict/failure, or whether the source branch is deleted or closed after merge.

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?

Four short clauses, each carrying a distinct and necessary fact (irreversibility, required confirm, version default, optional params plus strategy values), with the most safety-critical warning front-loaded. No filler.

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 7-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the decision-critical surface: risk, gate, defaulting, and strategy choice. Gaps are secondary but real — the meaning of id, success/failure outcomes, and permission prerequisites are left unstated.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate; it does so partially by explaining confirm, version semantics, message, and the strategyId values (merge-commit/squash/fast-forward) that the schema leaves as a bare string. However, the low-coverage parameters project/repo/id get no clarification — notably id, a bare number with no indication of whether it is a PR number or internal id.

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 ("merge a pull request") preceded by the irreversibility marker, which immediately distinguishes it from every sibling (list/get/merge-status/comment tools). An agent can classify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives hard preconditions — confirm:true is mandatory and the action is irreversible — plus a default-behavior rule ("uses the current PR version unless one is given"). What it lacks is routing guidance versus the closest sibling: it never suggests checking bitbucket_get_merge_status or reading the PR first before committing the merge.

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