team_bind_session

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/readOnly flags, while the description adds substantial behavioral context: old members, executions and snapshots keep their original source and cannot be synced under a new origin, and the user-facing confirmation protocol. This is exactly the extra consequence disclosure annotations cannot provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the rebind prerequisites, then consequences, then the safety caveat. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the safety protocol and history isolation well, but leaves expectedRevision (likely a concurrency guard) and nativeIdSource unexplained, so an agent still lacks guidance on those inputs.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain sessionId (full native UUID), previousSessionId (exact match), confirmRebind and evidence. However, nativeIdSource (which has an enum) and expectedRevision are left unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 pair (bind or explicitly change) against a concrete resource (a board conversation), and scopes it to a full native UUID. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish it from record-append or board-creation siblings.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition for the change path (a rebind requires exact previousSessionId, confirmRebind=true, and evidence after showing old/new IDs and history isolation to the user). It does not explicitly compare to siblings or say when not to use it, keeping it below a 5.

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