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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that it requires existing account access, may start Desktop first, reuses a healthy Bridge, and that recovery can stop and replace an unhealthy owned Bridge process 'interrupting its connections' — which concretely explains the destructiveHint=true in ways the annotation alone could not. Also notes it returns the control action's status despite no output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, then behavior, then routing. No filler — even the final sentence, though long, is a compact alternative-map that prevents misfires.

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 zero-parameter control action with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, return signal, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of 'on the receiving computer' is the only implicit selector, and it correctly adds no parameter guidance because none exists.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Start the authenticated Desktop-to-Blender Bridge service'), scoped to 'the receiving computer'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open_blender ('separately launches Blender'), so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

States the trigger ('Use when the user needs the Bridge running') and names three alternatives with their conditions: get_app_state/check_connection for inspection, stop_bridge for teardown, open_blender for launching Blender. Exclusions are explicit rather than implied.

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