tldraw_bind_arrow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the visual connection and the behavior of following the shape when moved, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., replacing existing bindings), prerequisites (arrow must exist), or output.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, 22 words) and front-loaded with the action, with no superfluous content.

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 the parameter count (6) and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context such as prerequisites, replacing existing bindings, or relation to other arrow-related operations.

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 100%, so the description adds no new parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it does not enhance or clarify parameter meaning.

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 clearly specifies the action ('bind'), the resource (an arrow's start or end terminal), and the target (a shape), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tldraw_unbind_arrow' and 'tldraw_create_arrow'.

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 description implies when to use (when you want to connect an arrow to a shape) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on context and sibling names.

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