st.chat.worldbook.bind

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates chat_metadata.world_info and requires confirmation, which is useful. It does not explain side effects, reversibility, or how parameters like force, unset, or snapshotLabel affect behavior.

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 very brief, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only the most essential requirement. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly. The agent is left guessing how to specify the worldbook, which chat, and how to choose bind versus unbind.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions confirm: true. It does not explain the meaning or roles of avatar, fileName, book, force, unset, or snapshotLabel, leaving critical parameter semantics undocumented.

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 ('Bind or unbind'), a specific resource ('a worldbook'), and the target mechanism ('through chat_metadata.world_info'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from worldbook management tools like st.worldbook.create_empty and generic chat metadata tools like st.chat.metadata.patch.

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 communicates the essential precondition 'Requires confirm: true,' which is important for invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or how the bind versus unbind behavior is selected.

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