bind_bridge

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it discloses session-scoped memory, persistence/restore behavior, multi-instance auto-detection semantics, and unbind as a distinct mode. It stops short of stating failure modes, whether binding evicts another session, or what the returned status contains in any detail.

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?

Purpose and persistence guarantee are front-loaded, and the Args section is compact. The Examples block is somewhat redundant with the Args prose but does usefully disambiguate the mutually exclusive modes, so it earns most of its space.

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?

Correctly omits return-value details because an output schema exists, and covers the primary mode-switching parameters plus the persistence contract. The remaining gaps (three undocumented booleans) are real but narrow relative to a tool whose whole surface is 'bind, inspect, or unbind'.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains four of them (port, auto, unbind, restore), but wait_seconds, force_takeover, and expected_bridge_id are never mentioned, and force_takeover in particular is a consequential behavioral knob left undocumented.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: binding a Unity bridge to the current MCP session, with the added scope that the binding is persisted across server restarts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like select_bridge or bridge_admin, which an agent must still infer from their names alone.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool is the right choice ('适合需要长期固定连接到特定 Unity 实例的场景'), and the per-argument notes explain the auto-detect tradeoff when multiple instances exist. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so routing against select_bridge/bridge_admin remains guesswork.

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