bridge_send

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds the idempotency_key behavior (retry must not create duplicate), which is useful. It doesn't disclose what happens on failure, delivery guarantees, or whether the message is persisted. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds some value but not deep behavioral 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action, the second explains the two payload options, the third covers idempotency. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has 5 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and an output schema. The description covers the key decision points (content vs message, idempotency_key). It doesn't explain the output schema, but that's available separately. It doesn't mention channel/sender requirements, but those are self-explanatory from the schema. Given the complexity, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 40%, so the description must compensate. It explains the distinction between content (legacy) and message (versioned structured envelope), and the purpose of idempotency_key. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only describes content as 'Legacy text or JSON' and message as 'Structured protocol-v1 envelope'. The description clarifies the semantic difference and the idempotency use case.

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 a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('durable message'), and distinguishes between two payload formats (content vs message). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from bridge_receive, bridge_ack, etc.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use content vs message, and when to supply idempotency_key. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context of siblings (receive, ack, wait) implies this is the send operation. The guidance is practical and actionable.

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