remove_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action, but does not mention whether removal is irreversible, what side effects occur, or whether special permissions are needed. The term 'Remove' implies destructiveness, but no specifics are given.

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 a single sentence with no filler or unnecessary detail. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the action and object efficiently.

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 simple removal tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description states the core purpose but omits behavioral details and usage conditions. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps regarding expected behavior and context, especially given the lack of annotations.

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%, and the description does not explain the ip and port parameters. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, failing to compensate for the lack of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'a registered logical bridge', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools such as add_bridge. It communicates the action and target without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when removal is appropriate, or when another tool (e.g., remove_name) might be more suitable.

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