bitbucket_resolve_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real internal behavior: it fetches the comment version first and then flips state to RESOLVED (implying an optimistic-concurrency mechanism). It omits permission requirements, idempotency, reversibility, and what a failed resolve looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its mechanism front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 4-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism but leaves the `id` parameter and the caller's prerequisites undefined. It also says nothing about the return value or side effects, which matters given no annotations.

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 50%: repo and project are documented in the schema, while `id` and `commentId` are bare numbers. The description clarifies commentId as the blocker comment's id but never says what `id` is (presumably the pull request id), leaving a required parameter unexplained in both places.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Resolve a task (blocker comment) on a pull request") and clarifies that the task is a blocker comment, which distinguishes it from siblings like bitbucket_get_blocker_comments and bitbucket_add_comment. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as first discovering the comment via bitbucket_get_blocker_comments. The phrase "by its comment id" implies the calling context but leaves alternatives and ordering to inference.

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