midl_bridge_rune_to_erc20

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds that the ERC20 tokens are credited after validator confirmation (~10 minutes), indicating a delay and multi-step process. This provides useful behavioral context not captured in annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—the first states what it does, the second explains the timing and confirmation process. No unnecessary words.

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 bridging tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the key behavioral aspects: cross-layer transfer, delay, and confirmation dependency. It does not cover failure scenarios or return value, but given the tool's complexity, it is reasonably 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% with descriptions for both parameters (runeId as 'Rune ID to bridge' with example, amount as 'Amount of runes to bridge'). The description does not add new details beyond reinforcing the schema; baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Bridge a Rune from Bitcoin layer to its ERC20 representation on EVM', clearly identifying the action, resource, and destination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like midl_bridge_erc20_to_rune (reverse direction) or midl_bridge_btc_to_evm (different asset).

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 bridging runes to ERC20 but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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