Invoke a bridge operation (mcpb resource)

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the prerequisite enablement state, the mcpb_event_allowlist constraint on trigger_event, and the in-band poll-queue result mechanism. It doesn't flag which specific ops are the destructive ones (teleport/freeze/send_nui), leaving some ambiguity for a destructive-annotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the target/op matrix, then the prerequisite — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and cramped into long clauses, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still explains how client results arrive (poll queue, no FIVEM_SERVER_LOG). Combined with target/op routing, src requirement, timeout default and prerequisites, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema by decomposing the opaque 'args' JSON string into per-op shapes ({resource, method, args}, {event, args, toClient?, player?}, teleport {x,y,z,heading?}, send_nui {resource, message, event?}). That is real added meaning the schema cannot convey; it only falls short of 5 because a few op argument sets are listed without field semantics.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Runs an operation through the mcpb bridge resource') and immediately differentiates itself from sibling command tools by naming the boundary ('the half neither devcon nor RCON can reach'). The op inventory further pins down exactly what the tool does.

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?

Provides clear context for selection: server ops vs client ops, the rule that client ops 'needs src', and the prerequisite that the bridge must be installed, started and enabled. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling (e.g., server_command/client_command) over this tool.

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