peerbridge-mcp defines 9 tools with complete JSON schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (send_message, bridge_status, control_discussion). Descriptions are present but vary in clarity, some are domain-specific and assume deep knowledge of PeerBridge's multi-agent orchestration model (e.g., 'Atomically create one exact routed message from the calling room member to every other active Agent seat'). All tools have typed input schemas with constraints (enums, maxLength, patterns). However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely, most params lack explanations of their purpose, valid ranges, or dependencies. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling is minimal; no recovery guidance or actionable error messages visible. Security considerations (permission gates, audit trails) are not evident in the tool definitions.

• Add descriptions to every parameter. For each param, explain: what it controls, valid values/ranges, format (e.g., 'room_id: UUID of the room. Required. Example format: 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000').
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify the structure, field types, and meaning of each returned field. Example: 'bridge_status returns {status: string, tasks: [{id, state, created_at}], presence: {active_agents: number}}'.
• Add error handling guidance. For each tool, document common failure modes and recovery steps. Example: 'If room_id is invalid, returns 404 with available room IDs. Retry with a valid room_id or call list_rooms() first.'
• Simplify descriptions for non-expert users. Replace 'SHA-bound message' with 'A message with a cryptographic signature that ensures integrity'. Explain domain concepts inline or link to glossary.
• Add permission declarations. For write tools (send_message, set_room_automation), document required scopes (e.g., 'Requires: write:messages, write:room_config'). For coordinator-only tools (advance_discussions, reconcile_message_dispatches), add explicit permission checks in descriptions.