Start remote chat mode

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and openWorld=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: every call without session opens a new thread, returns onboarding instructions when no channel is configured, and fails closed on ambiguous conversation identification. These go beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 5 sentences, each packed with essential information: main purpose, when to call, threading caution, failure mode, and safety behavior. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 optional params, no output schema, sibling tools), the description fully covers intent, usage, side effects, failure modes, and integration with other bridge_* tools. It is complete and self-contained.

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 each parameter is well-documented. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates session reuse and adapter override, which are already in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Opens a dedicated thread... and returns the session handle that every other bridge_* tool requires.' This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_send or bridge_await, making its role clear.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'Call it when the user asks — in any language — to start remote chat, bridge, or Telegram mode.' It also provides exclusions: 'Call it once per conversation' and warns against re-starting without session, advising to re-arm instead.

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