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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description goes beyond them by scoping the write ('only the built-in agent's declared settings keys') and adding the audit-row side effect. It does not detail auth or reversibility, but the main behavioral risk is addressed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object, no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: what is bound and what side effects occur.

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 bind tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core workflow pieces: an approved preview, matching config, approval metadata, and idempotency. It does not explicitly name configure_preview as the prerequisite step, but the approved-preview language makes the dependency clear enough.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds needed meaning: config must be the same as the preview, binding carries approval metadata, and the idempotency key must match. It does not explain request_id or every binding subfield, but those are sufficiently self-describing in 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 names a specific action ('Bind'), a specific resource ('approved built-in-agent configure preview'), and states the effect: writes only declared settings keys and an audit row. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling configure_preview (which stages but does not save) and from enable_bind.

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 phrase 'approved built-in-agent configure preview' implies this is the commit step after a preview, but the description never explicitly says to use it after configure_preview or contrasts it with that sibling. Usage context is inferable, not stated.

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