Bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: calls are submitted to WalletChan and require popup approval unless previewOnly is true. But it says nothing about irreversibility of the bridge, fund movement, the role of executionProfile/atomicRequired, or failure/fallback behavior, so the safety profile is only partially covered.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action (quote, build, submit) and puts the previewOnly exception at the end where it belongs. No wasted words, though the sentence packs three distinct operations without separating them.

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 20-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool that performs an on-chain bridge, the description is thin. The rich schema compensates on parameters, but the description leaves the agent without routing guidance versus siblings or any note on execution profiles, atomicity, and what the returned prepared calls are for.

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% with 20 well-documented parameters, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only the previewOnly meaning, duplicating what the schema's previewOnly description already states.

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 names specific verbs and resources — quote a WalletChan bridge, build approval + bridge calls, submit them — which is more than a restatement of the name 'bridge'. It distinguishes the full quote-and-submit flow from the quote-only sibling get_bridge_quote, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 is implied by the flow description and the 'unless previewOnly is true' condition, which tells the agent how to get a dry run. However there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_bridge_quote, swap, or get_bridge_status, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. an approved account).

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