execute_bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states the auth requirement but omits critical traits for a fund-moving bridge execution, such as irreversibility, finality, failure modes, and expected 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first and the key prerequisite second, so every sentence earns its place.

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 high-stakes cross-chain execution tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers purpose and auth but omits execution behavior, safety constraints, and return expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which makes the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (cross-chain bridge transaction), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling estimate_bridge, but the execution-vs-estimation distinction is still clear.

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?

Mentions the prerequisite 'Requires managed-custody auth,' which gives some usage context. However, it does not say when to use this versus estimate_bridge, get_bridge_orders, or other bridge-related siblings, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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