ap_bridge_set_enabled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so thoroughly: it reveals the real performance cost, names the underlying call (iron_delay_idle_sleep()), explains the effect on rendering/focus behavior, and warns that disabling interrupts request processing. This is exemplary transparency for a state-changing tool.

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 but information-dense. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the cost, the recommended usage, and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place and none is redundant with the schema.

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 one-parameter toggling tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what the side effects are, and what to be careful about. An agent can safely and correctly invoke it based on this description alone.

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 input schema already fully describes the single boolean parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by tying the parameter to practical consequences: enabled means full-rate polling, disabled means idling and losing request reading. This lifts it above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Turn the bridge's per-frame polling on or off.' It clearly identifies what state is being changed and is distinct from the sibling tools, which mostly deal with painting, project management, or object operations.

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 explicitly says when to disable the bridge ('Disable it when no agent is working'), explains why it is normally enabled (remote control of a background window), and includes a strong warning that disabling stops request reading, making this the last tool that will work until manual re-enable. This gives clear operational guidance beyond merely stating what the tool does.

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