execute_bridge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the managed-custody auth prerequisite, which is genuine extra context, but omits what funds movement is irreversible, failure/rollback behavior, and how the session-key vs apiKey paths differ.

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 short sentences, action first, prerequisite second. No waste whatsoever.

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 destructive, open-world, 7-parameter transaction with no output schema, the description is thin: no mention of required ordering with gdex_connect, no fee/slippage or irreversible-funds warning, and no guidance on the auth variants implied by apiKey/sessionPrivateKey. Schema and annotations cover the rest, so it is adequate but not complete.

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% (7 params, all documented), so the schema itself carries the heavy lifting — including accountRef's explanation of how it supplies session key and API key without passing secrets in chat. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Execute a cross-chain bridge transaction'), which is clearly a mutating action. However it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as usdc_execute_bridge or estimate_bridge, so an agent must open the schema to route correctly.

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?

'Requires managed-custody auth' gives a precondition, which is more than most mutating tools provide. But it never says when to use this bridge versus estimate_bridge (preview) or usdc_execute_bridge, nor what to do first (e.g. gdex_connect).

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