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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral detail: confirmation is required before executing. It also uses 'deactivates' intentionally, suggesting a soft-delete rather than permanent deletion. However, it does not disclose reversibility, side effects, or permission requirements.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but 'Deactivates the Bridge' is repeated verbatim, creating redundancy. The parameter list is well-structured, but the duplicate line could have been omitted.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description should provide more about the consequences of deactivation, such as impact on existing bridge operations or reactivation possibilities. The parameter coverage and confirmation detail are helpful, but behavioral side effects remain unaddressed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's @param lines fully explain each parameter, including their source (e.g., external_account_id from /bridge/list). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool deactivates a Bridge, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bridge_list and bridge_rename by focusing on the deactivation operation.

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 use case is implied: you use this tool to deactivate a bridge. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. The confirmation note is a behavioral trait, not a usage guideline.

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