usdc_execute_bridge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the IRREVERSIBLE/outward-facing nature is partly covered. The description adds the polling follow-up and the maxFromAmountRaw safety pattern, but does not state irreversibility, required auth (accountRef session), or failure/refund behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the non-obvious parameter derivation, then the required follow-up call. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by noting the response carries an id used for polling. It covers purpose, the tricky parameter, and the workflow handoff; only the auth/precondition path is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning for maxFromAmountRaw — explaining it is a signed maximum derived from the estimate's fromAmountRaw plus small headroom — which the schema's bare 'Signed maximum source spend' does not convey.

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 and resource: 'Move USDC between chains.' This is clearly an execution/bridge action distinguishable from quote-type siblings in spirit, but it never names the estimate siblings (estimate_bridge, usdc_estimate_bridge) it pairs with, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives an operational recipe (use the estimate's fromAmountRaw plus headroom; poll usdc_get_bridge_status), which implies estimate-first usage. However it never explicitly says when to use this versus estimate_bridge/usdc_estimate_bridge or what preconditions (connected account, funded source) must hold.

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