bridge_seam

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals that retract and edit are mutating actions but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, required fields by action, defaults, or response behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action list is easy to scan. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though that concision contributes to gaps assessed in other dimensions.

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?

This is a five-parameter CRUD-style tool with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema. The one-sentence description does not explain per-action semantics, required fields, or return behavior, leaving too much for an agent to infer before invocation.

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 would need to compensate. It repeats the enum values already present in the schema for tag and action, but explains nothing about seam_id, summary, task_id, conditional parameter requirements, or default behavior.

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 states specific verbs (log, edit, retract, list) and names the resource as seams with four enumerated seam types. The purpose is clear, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as bridge_decide or bridge_fact, and the term 'seams' is not independently defined.

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 enumerates possible actions but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings, nor when to use log versus edit or retract. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for action selection.

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