Critical failures across all 20 tools. Every tool has an identical, generic input schema with a single 'operation' string parameter lacking any description or constraints. No output schemas are documented. Tool descriptions are present but extremely generic (12-50 chars), providing no guidance on when to use each tool, what operations are supported, or what data is returned. The schema structure suggests code generation, but the generator produced non-functional tool definitions. No parameter validation, no error guidance, no composition support.

• Expand tool descriptions to 50-200 characters. Include WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it (vs similar tools), and what it returns. Example: 'Create, list, or update pull requests. Use this to open PRs, fetch PR details, or merge. Returns PR ID, title, status, and author.'
• Replace the generic 'operation' parameter with explicit, enumerated operations. For bitbucket_pr, define: operation: enum [create_pr, list_prs, get_pr, update_pr, merge_pr] with separate required parameters for each (e.g., create_pr requires source_branch, target_branch, title).
• Document output schemas for every tool. Specify which fields are returned, their types, and which are safe to chain into downstream tools. Example: 'Returns {pr_id: string, title: string, status: enum, author_id: string, created_at: ISO8601}'.
• Add parameter descriptions and constraints. For any 'operation' enum, document what each operation does and what additional parameters it requires. For numeric params, specify min/max (e.g., limit: 1-100).
• Implement error handling with recovery guidance. Return structured errors: {error_code, message, retryable: bool, suggestion: string}. Example: 'Repository not found. Did you mean: bitbucket-cli, bitbucket-cli-dev?'