bridge_admin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does surrender useful safety context: destructive operations keep bridge/client/generation identity checks and 'never kill a process.' However, it never says what clear actually removes, whether repair mutates state or requires force, or what any action returns — leaving the mutation profile of six actions largely opaque.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the verb list comes first, followed by the action enumeration and then the constraint on clear. No filler sentences, though the compression is part of why several parameters go unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is fairly excused, but for a multiplexed six-action tool with seven parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It never explains what each action does or which parameters each action needs, so an agent must guess before invoking.

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 and mostly does not. It documents only the side enum requirement for clear; host, port, force, bridge_id, and client_id remain undefined in both schema and prose, including which actions consume which identity parameters.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and a clear resource: 'Pair, inspect, diagnose, clear, or safely repair a Unity bridge,' and then enumerates the six action values. An agent can see the surface area at a glance, though it does not distinguish this from siblings like select_bridge or bind_bridge.

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?

The action list implies when each mode applies, and the 'Clear also requires side=binding|accepted|listener' line is a real constraint. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling bridge tools (select_bridge, bind_bridge, ensure_ready), nor any when-not to use it.

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