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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses that the signature "does not grant authority," that Atlas will not name or assign a principal, and that certain fields are withheld before admission. These are non-obvious state and trust semantics an agent could not infer from the schema. It doesn't characterize failure modes or what the binding actually persists, so it's not a 5.

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 bracketed prerequisite tag is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences are dense but purposeful — each covers a distinct rule (required inputs, source of the declaration, omitted fields, principal semantics, next call). There is some redundancy with the schema on the principal clause, but no wasted framing.

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 10-parameter, annotation-thin mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers entry conditions, required parameters, field-omission rules, trust caveats, and the required successor call. The main gap is what a successful bind returns (beyond the implied matter_id) and what refusal looks like. It is complete enough to invoke 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: authority_acknowledgment must be the declaration_text from atlas.discover (a cross-tool provenance link the schema doesn't give), and it explains the pre-admission omission rule for matter_id/objective_id/objective_text as a group. The principal explanation largely duplicates the schema wording, which caps it below 5.

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 concrete action — "Admit yourself by signing the declaration" — and names the two required inputs, so the agent knows this is the admission/binding step rather than a generic write. It is distinguishable from credential-only siblings like atlas.authenticate because it is framed as a declared admission gated on a declaration text. The verb "bind actor" itself is somewhat internal jargon, so it isn't quite a textbook 5.

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 explicit sequencing: "enroll, then atlas.bind_actor" as a prerequisite and "After it succeeds, call atlas.institutional_view" as the follow-up, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also states a clear when-not rule for matter_id/objective_id/objective_text ("Omit ... none is disclosed before admission"). It does not compare itself against near-neighbors such as atlas.authenticate or atlas.present_identity, which keeps it short of a 5.

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