origin_bridge_submit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only hints at asynchronous execution ('queued background task') but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it is destructive. This is insufficient for a task submission tool.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., front-loading key constraints).

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?

Despite output schema existing, the description lacks important context: valid methods, task lifecycle, error handling, and how to retrieve results. Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations), more complete context is needed for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with adequate parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('submit') and resource ('supported Origin bridge method') and indicates the result is a 'queued background task', distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel or list tasks. However, it could be more explicit about the nature of 'Origin bridge' and the queuing behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., submitting directly). There are no prerequisites, error conditions, or mentions of other bridge task management tools among the listed siblings.

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