b2b_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'bridge' but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the original call. This lack of detail is critical for a mutation operation.

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?

The description is concise with a clear summary, use cases, and a structured parameter list. It is well-organized but the parameter section could be more integrated into the narrative.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, mentioning the source for the key and target format. However, it does not address error conditions or what the output schema returns, though the latter is partially covered by the existence of an output 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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that 'key' comes from b2b_list_sessions and provides an example format for 'new_dst' (sip:agent@domain). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 description clearly states the action 'Bridge an existing B2B call to a new destination URI' with specific use cases (attended-transfer, failover, music-on-hold). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like b2b_terminate and b2b_trigger_scenario.

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 description lists explicit use scenarios and references b2b_list_sessions for obtaining the session key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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