bind_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes a mutation ('Bind ... connects') but does not disclose whether existing bindings are overwritten, permission requirements, or error behavior (e.g., invalid variableId). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, direct and free of fluff. However, it could be slightly more efficient by merging the two sentences without losing meaning. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

No output schema is present. The description explains the core function but omits behavioral details (e.g., effects of rebinding, role in theming system). For a simple 3-parameter tool, it is minimally complete but could be improved with more context on return values or side effects.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (nodeId, field, variableId). The description adds thematic context but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states the action: 'Bind a Variable to a node property' and explains the purpose: 'connects component properties to the theming system'. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_component_property (direct property setting) and create_variable (creation without binding).

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 usage for theming connections but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like set_component_property or create_variable. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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