lifi_execute_bridge

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context by specifying that this is a write operation requiring wallet and confirmation, and by pointing out the need for token addresses. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail failure modes or side effects.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys the operation type, prerequisites, and safety requirements without fluff.

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 bridge execution tool with a destructive nature, the description covers key prerequisites (wallet, confirmation, token addresses). It doesn't mention the need for a prior quote or prepared intent, which are present in sibling tools, but the core requirements are stated. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not expected.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described as a token address or chain ID. The description's note about 'Requires token addresses' is somewhat redundant with the schema, and it doesn't add deeper semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what is already present. Baseline 3 applies.

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's function: 'Execute a cross-chain bridge' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lifi_get_quote and lifi_prepare_bridge_intent by framing itself as the execution step, and the 'write operation' note further differentiates it from read-only tools.

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 usage context: it requires a wallet and confirmation, and explicitly directs users to use resolve_token first to obtain token addresses. While it doesn't explicitly name lifi_get_quote or lifi_prepare_bridge_intent as prerequisites, the implication of sequencing is clear enough.

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