execute_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning that this is an on-chain transaction, that funds will be transferred, that a private key is required, or any risk/side-effect information. The privateKey parameter hints at sensitivity but the description adds no context.

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 fluff, but it is too underspecified for a complex tool. It is concise but not appropriately sized given the tool's 7 parameters and sensitive privateKey input, so it lacks the structure needed to be truly helpful.

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 tool is complex (7 params, includes privateKey, no output schema, no annotations) but the description provides almost no contextual completeness. It does not explain what happens on success, return format, chain support, or any operational caveats. This is a significant gap.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 executes a cross-chain bridge transfer, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like execute_swap or the various bridge quote/status tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a bridge quote via get_bridge_quote or checking supported chains via get_supported_bridges), and no exclusions or warnings are provided.

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