Reconnect the bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (drops the connection, plugin reconnects), which is real value, but says nothing about whether the drop is immediate, whether in-flight requests are aborted, or what happens if no plugin is listening.

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, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the usage condition following. Nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema maintenance tool, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it. Only minor edge-case behavior (failure mode when no plugin is connected) is unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 action ('drop the current Blockbench connection') plus the resulting behavior ('the plugin dials back in'), which distinguishes it from sibling bb_bridge_status (a read) and bb_reload_plugin (a different remedy). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the triggering condition: 'Use after reloading the plugin in Blockbench.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it names no when-not case or chalk alternative (e.g., bb_reload_plugin) to disambiguate further.

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