bridge_setup

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so this is a mutation the description must explain. It does add real context beyond the annotation: the change is scoped to 'safe' settings and requests involving the binary path or capability mode are rejected by design — non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of saying whether changes persist across restarts or require a reconnect to take effect.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion rule following immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 small mutation tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, the accepted fields, and the rejection behavior adequately. The remaining gap is effect semantics — whether the change is persisted or applied to a live bridge — which an agent might reasonably need but which is minor given the tool's narrow surface.

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 100% and each parameter already has a short description, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates the same three settings and adds the fact that two further settings exist but are deliberately excluded, which clarifies the parameter space without documenting syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') plus the exact resource ('safe bridge settings') and enumerates the three mutable fields (port, headless, protocol pin). It also carves out what it will not touch, which lets an agent separate it from siblings such as bridge_start, bridge_stop, bridge_version and bridge_status without opening any schema.

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?

Clear about the context in which it applies ('safe bridge settings' only) and explicitly states that the binary path and capability mode are rejected here by design, which is a useful when-not rule at the parameter level. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for changing those excluded settings, nor does it state any prerequisites for calling it.

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