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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds context about requiring 'explicit approval metadata' and 'matching idempotency key', which clarifies the safety contract. However, it doesn't disclose what gets archived, whether the application becomes inaccessible, or any side effects beyond archiving.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key constraint ('already-previewed') is front-loaded. It earns its place by conveying the essential precondition and the approval requirement.

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?

This is a destructive, idempotent bind operation with a nested binding object and 0% schema coverage, yet the description doesn't explain the preview-bind workflow, what the binding fields mean, or what happens after archiving. An agent would struggle to construct a valid 'binding' object without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'approval metadata' and 'idempotency key' generically. It doesn't explain the nested 'binding' object's fields (preview_hash, approved_action_key, approved_input_hash, approved_idempotency_key, resource_version_precondition) or how they relate to a prior preview. The 'reason' and 'request_id' parameters are entirely unexplained.

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') and resource ('already-previewed application archive') with explicit approval metadata and idempotency key. It distinguishes from preview tools by emphasizing 'already-previewed' and 'explicit approval metadata', though it doesn't name sibling alternatives directly.

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 implies this is the confirmation step after a preview, and the 'already-previewed' phrasing signals it should not be used before previewing. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like yardstick_applications_archive_preview or transition_bind, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the preview-then-bind workflow.

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