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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful workflow constraints (prior preview, explicit approval, matching idempotency key), but it does not describe the live-plan side effects, version-conflict behavior, or reversibility.

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 one focused sentence with no filler and it front-loads the core action before the qualifiers. The jargon density is high, but every phrase carries information.

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 destructive, nested, six-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is too thin. It omits the preview-to-bind workflow, how to populate the binding object from preview output, error/conflict handling, and what the caller can expect in return, so an agent would still need to infer a lot from tool names and schema.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it only covers part of the binding semantics. 'Approval metadata' and 'matching idempotency key' clarify the role of the binding object and idempotency_key, but preview_hash, approved_input_hash, resource_version_precondition, expected_*_version, resource, and request_id remain 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 names a specific action ('bind'), a specific artifact ('interview-plan active modification'), and the workflow state ('already-previewed'), which prevents confusion with the paired preview tool. It stops short of 5 because 'bind' is domain jargon and the sentence never states plainly that this confirms/applies the change to the live plan.

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?

'Already-previewed' is an explicit precondition that tells the agent this is the post-preview confirmation step, and the reference to 'explicit approval metadata and matching idempotency key' further narrows when it is safe to call. It does not name the companion preview tool or give a when-not-to-use rule, but the context is clear.

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