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

Annotations already signal non-readOnly and destructive behavior, and the description adds concrete side effects: it 'writes the built-in agent's declared settings home' and 'records one audit row.' It also reinforces the idempotentHint by requiring a matching idempotency key. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 carry the action and the consequence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the audit/settings side effect is stated compactly in the second sentence.

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 complex bind operation with a 5-field nested approval object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not indicate where the approval metadata comes from, what a successful response looks like, or how the binding relates to the enable_preview sibling, leaving a significant inference burden on the agent.

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%, and the description only vaguely references 'explicit approval metadata' and a 'matching idempotency key.' It does not explain preview_hash, approved_input_hash, resource_version_precondition, request_id, or how the two key fields relate, so the agent cannot confidently populate the nested binding object from the description alone.

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 action ('Bind an approved built-in-agent enable preview') and the resource affected, and the title clarifies that this turns on the agent. It is distinguishable from configure_bind by the 'enable' framing, though the term 'bind' is somewhat domain-specific and not fully unpacked.

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 enable preview' implies this is the follow-up to an enable_preview call and requires prior approval metadata. However, it never explicitly names the preview sibling or says when not to use this tool versus configure_bind or other alternatives, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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