Keep a preview's comments on this machine

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers: it starts a localhost bridge, comments persist under .maple/, and they explicitly do not count toward the merge gate. That last point is a genuine behavioral trait not derivable from structured fields. It omits lifecycle details such as how the bridge is stopped or whether it persists across sessions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by the workflow and the merge-gate caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly tells the agent what is returned (a pairing link) and where comments end up. For a stateful, non-read-only tool it could say more about shutdown or multiplicity of bridges, but the core call-and-consequence picture is complete.

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% and the single previewUrl parameter already documents the format and the origin-pairing constraint. The description only restates that the preview is 'paired' with the bridge, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — 'Start a bridge on localhost and return the link' — and immediately explains what the link does, which compensates for the opaque name 'start_solo'. It also names the sibling tools (list_comments, wait_for_comments) that consume the output, so an agent can place it in the workflow 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?

Usage context is clear: use this when you want a deployed preview's reviewer comments to land on this machine. It describes the reviewer-side workflow and the merge-gate behavior, but never states when NOT to use it or what alternative exists for other comment-routing modes.

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