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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by stating it records provenance without creating an effect. It adds valuable context: project-scoped side effects, return of project identity, rejection of 'hold' and static targets. No contradiction found, and it discloses the key non-creation behavior.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the project-scoped constraint, then quickly states the core purpose, clarifies target semantics, and ends with clear rejections. No redundant wording or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential details: required parameters, scoping, valid target types, special values, and rejection rules. It also states the return includes project identity, which addresses the output gap. An agent has enough 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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates substantially. It explains that target_type values map to specific domains (transition/captions are track-level, id is for item targets), clarifies motion_motif can be 'clear' and that 'hold' is rejected, and emphasizes project_id is an immutable scope that must be copied from a source, never guessed. These go well beyond the schema.

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 ('bind'), a precise resource (an existing renderer-visible movement to a motif id), and distinguishes it from creation tools by clarifying it records provenance rather than creating an effect. It also enumerates target types and explicitly rejects static targets and 'hold', leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 clearly scopes the call to a project_id, explains it acts on EXISTING movements, and differentiates track-level vs item targets. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the behavioral constraints (e.g., 'does not create an effect') make the usage context clear. The 'clear' option and rejection rules further guide correct invocation.

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