Rebind an interrupted 3D generation task to its completed asset after reviewing thumbnail and evidence. Restore workflow continuity without regenerating.
Explicitly rebind an interrupted task only after reviewing its matching completed asset. Thumbnail must identify the one selected card. Never generates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| thumbnail | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'never generates,' but it does not explain side effects of rebinding, whether it mutates state, requires permissions, or can be undone. For a recovery/mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying meaningful information, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The word 'Explicitly' is somewhat redundant, but overall the description is efficiently written.
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?
Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 18 siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks definitions for 'evidence' and 'job_id,' omits return-value or side-effect information, and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond a vague 'never generates.'
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 compensate. It only clarifies 'thumbnail' ('must identify the one selected card'); 'job_id' is self-explanatory by name but undocumented, and 'evidence' is entirely unexplained. The description fails to adequately define two of the three required parameters.
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 ('rebind an interrupted task') and adds a clear constraint ('only after reviewing its matching completed asset'). The phrase 'Never generates' helps distinguish it from generation-focused siblings, though 'rebind' remains domain-specific jargon.
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 provides a clear precondition (use only after reviewing the completed asset) and implies it's for interrupted tasks, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or enumerate when-not-to-use conditions. 'Never generates' is a behavioral constraint rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.