manage_attach

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Inspect or control' hints at mutation but does not disclose the potentially destructive force-stop/terminate/disconnect-all actions, side effects, or reversibility. The action enum documents these, but the description itself is silent.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could be slightly more informative about destructive behavior, but as a high-level statement it is efficiently worded and easy to parse.

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 rich action enum and presence of an output schema cover much of what an agent needs to invoke the tool, but the top-level description still lacks usage context and safety warnings for a tool with highly destructive actions. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 single parameter is 100% covered by schema descriptions with an exhaustive enum and per-action semantics, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It also adds none, which is acceptable given the baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

'Inspect or control attach bridge configuration' names a specific verb and resource, making the tool's scope clear. It is not tautological and the 'attach bridge' resource distinguishes it from the sibling session/library tools, though it does not explicitly reference them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus manage_session or the other siblings, no mention of the default action, and no exclusions. The only usage hints come from the action enum in the schema, which the description itself does not surface.

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