Bind a connection to a worker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions the purpose options but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether an existing binding is replaced), auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a creation 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 long, which is efficient. It directly states the action and lists the purpose options. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose list as a note or using bullet points, but overall it is relatively concise.

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 context of no output schema, no annotations, and only 67% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits critical information such as error conditions, return values, prerequisites (e.g., worker and connection must exist and be valid), and whether binding is idempotent. This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has 67% description coverage: workerId and connectionId have descriptions in the schema, while purpose has only an enum without description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the purpose values (OUTBOUND, INBOUND, BOTH), which the schema lacks. This is helpful but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description on purpose, and no additional context is provided for other 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 clearly states the verb 'Bind' and the resources 'connection to a worker'. The purpose parameter enum adds clarity on the direction of binding. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like binding_delete or bindings_list, leaving the agent to infer that this tool creates a 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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It explains the purpose parameter's values (INBOUND, OUTBOUND, BOTH) but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., worker must exist), or when to use alternatives like connection_create_api or connection_create_webhook. No explicit when-not or exclusions are given.

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