bridge_steer

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds value by disclosing the requirement for 'explicit acceptance of the Desktop policy' and the caveat that it 'Never claims completion from queue acceptance', which are behavioral nuances beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the policy requirement and completion caveat are placed secondarily. Each clause contributes essential information, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema and a moderately complex tool, the description covers the core behavior, prerequisites, and a key caveat. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but for a recover/adopt operation these may be less critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions queuedSubmissionId and requestId as identifiers and acceptDesktopPolicy as the policy flag, giving some meaning. However, it omits threadId and receiptId entirely, leaving those ambiguous. The partial coverage is helpful but not complete for a five-parameter tool.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Recover an exact desktop queue receipt or adopt an existing CLI queue item' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_submit by explicitly noting 'without enqueueing again', and from bridge_receipt by covering recovery and adoption. The scope is precise and actionable.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (recovering a receipt or adopting a CLI queue item) and a prerequisite (acceptance of Desktop policy). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some room for inference rather than direct guidance.

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