team_bind_agent_activity

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description correctly matches that by describing a registration (write) operation with no destruction. It adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that host history is not read, that parent/UUID guessing is forbidden, and that missing/ambiguous/unavailable sources are recorded as visible resolution states rather than failing silently.

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 four tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Some clauses ('Returns nextRead only after unique mapping') are dense and would benefit from a slightly clearer phrasing, but every sentence 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 complex 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, exactness constraints, and failure-state behavior. It still leaves required parameter meaning and the nature of 'nextRead' unexplained, so it is only partially complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, and it only partially does so. It conceptually maps the 'subAgentActivity path/UUID items' and the parent-source fields, and 'unavailable sources' hints at unavailableReason, but boardId, memberId, and the required expectedRuntimeRef are never explained, leaving required inputs ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Resolve and register one recorded child' using 'exact subAgentActivity path/UUID items' from its spawning parent. An agent can tell it is a per-child binding/registration operation rather than a listing or snapshot, although it never names a sibling such as team_bind_session to disambiguate.

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?

Guidance is implied through constraints ('Does not read host history itself', 'Never substitutes another parent or guesses a UUID'), which tells the agent the caller must supply exact relayed data. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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