Bridge [DEPRECATED]

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

While annotations are minimal (no destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it bypasses intent routing and requires specifying organ and tool_name. It also notes same implementation as the successor. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: one line for deprecation and alternative, one line for functionality. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 adequately covers purpose and usage for a deprecated tool but omits critical parameter details. Given that an output schema exists and the tool is deprecated, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 sole parameter '_envelope' is described only by its name and default null in the schema. The description does not explain its purpose or how 'organ' and 'tool_name' relate to this parameter, despite claiming those are required. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 explicitly states it is a deprecated low-level direct organ tool call, bypassing intent routing. It clearly identifies the resource (organ tool call) and action (bypasses routing), while also distinguishing from its replacement arif_bridge_connect.

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 starts with '[DEPRECATED — use arif_bridge_connect]', providing a direct alternative and indicating when not to use this tool. This explicit guidance is exemplary.

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