bridge_fact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the <=280 character limit and that this is an ingest/write-like operation, but says nothing about persistence, validation, duplicate handling, permissions, error behavior, or what the tool returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the terseness leaves important semantics unexplained rather than being maximally useful.

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 four-parameter mutation-like tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine how to populate kind, task_id, or confidence, nor what happens after ingestion.

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%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only clarifies the bounded length of 'statement'; it adds nothing about 'kind' values, 'task_id' semantics, or the meaning and effect of 'confidence'.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Ingest' a 'verification fact' for 'task reconciliation', plus a length bound. It is clear enough to distinguish from context/seam/decide siblings, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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 phrase 'for task reconciliation' implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternative sibling tools. The agent must infer selection from context.

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