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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-establish the write nature. It adds valuable context about session restrictions and the freshness requirement for the OAuth token, which are non-obvious behavioral constraints not predictable from annotations alone.

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 description is three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the critical requirement, and the blockers. It avoids redundant phrasing and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Together with the exhaustive parameter schema and safety annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and exclusions. It doesn't describe post-action effects or return values, but for a simple two-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, fully describing newUid and mcp_token with their constraints. The description merely restates the newUid requirement from the schema without adding genuinely new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Rebind Gate exchange UID,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from the sibling dex_wallet_bind_exchange_uid (bind vs. rebind). The '[write]' marker and the focus on replacing an existing UID make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states core prerequisites ('newUid must equal login_result.gate_uid from a fresh Gate OAuth') and exclusions ('Blocked for gate_mcp/gate_quick sessions and Google sessions'). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for first-time binding, but the context clearly implies when rebinding is appropriate versus initial binding.

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