Bridge Manage Tool

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description labels actions as read/write/destructive and explains that disconnect terminates the bridge session requiring re-registration. This adds useful behavioral context about side effects.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by bullet-pointed actions. It is concise but informative, with few wasted words. Could be slightly more terse.

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 covers main actions but lacks details on return values for read actions, error handling, and does not clarify that endpoint_id is required in schema but only relevant for specific actions. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully utilize the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new semantics for parameters beyond listing actions; it mentions endpoint_id in context of toggle but schema already covers it. No extra value added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a WebSocket relay for cloud experiments to reach private endpoints, and lists specific actions (status, endpoint_list, endpoint_toggle, disconnect) with precise verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its unique domain of bridge/private endpoint management.

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 implies usage for managing the bridge but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Given the many sibling tools, explicit differentiation would enhance this dimension.

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