bridge_session_manage

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-write and non-destructive; the description adds that it confirms stored metadata and that desktop rendering is separate, which is useful for setting expectations. It does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or what 'allowed' means, so coverage remains partial.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary actions; the behavioral note about desktop rendering is relevant but could be clearer. No major redundancy.

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 description does not explain parameter combinations, defaults, or edge cases such as whether position applies when unpinning, whether title and pin can be set together, or what 'registered project' means. Without an output schema, more detail is needed for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps 'Rename' to title, 'move into/out of Pinned' to pin, and 'First position' to position, but never explicitly names parameters and leaves 'assignProject' ambiguous (boolean flag vs action). The mappings are inferable but not stated.

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 explicitly names three concrete operations — rename, assignProject, and pin/unpin — on a Codex session, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like bridge_sessions or bridge_steer, relying on the agent to infer that this is the management tool.

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 description implies when to use the tool (whenever a session needs renaming, project assignment, or pinning), but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this one. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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