bridge_decide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a 14-parameter, five-action tool, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether 'propose' or 'resolve' mutate state, who may resolve, whether a blocking decision halts work, or what a listed decision looks like. Only the blocking/advisory distinction conveys any behavior at all.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler or repetition, and the verb list is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it tips into under-specification for a tool of this breadth.

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?

With 14 optional parameters, five distinct actions, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent has no way to know which parameters pair with which action, which actions are writes, or what any action returns.

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 14 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It clarifies only that `to` holds recipients and that `mode` is blocking/advisory; the remaining twelve parameters (option, options, criteria, criterion, score, urgency, decision_id, task_id, context, rationale, action) get no mapping to which action consumes them.

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 names the resource (1-Click Decisions) and enumerates five verbs (list, propose, score, resolve, check), so an agent knows the general domain. However, '1-Click Decisions' is unexplained jargon and the five actions are lumped into one clause with no indication of what each does, so the tool's actual purpose per invocation stays fuzzy.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no reference to any of the seven sibling tools (bridge_context, bridge_job, bridge_fact, etc.) that might be alternatives. The parenthetical '(blocking/advisory)' hints that decisions gate progress but stops short of telling the agent when to pick this tool.

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