tenki_bind_preview_url

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a binding/routing mutation, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). However, it adds little beyond the annotations: it doesn't state whether existing bindings are replaced, whether the preview URL must already exist, or what happens to traffic during rebinding. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still provides minimal added behavioral context.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb, object, and destination. The parenthetical 'advanced routing' adds useful context without bulk. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For an advanced routing tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description omits important context: the lifecycle relationship (e.g., whether the preview URL must be created first via tenki_create_preview_url), what happens when rebinding an already-bound URL, and error conditions. An agent navigating 70+ siblings needs more context to invoke this safely.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, and session_id even names source tools (tenki_create_sandbox/tenki_list_sandboxes). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Bind'), names the resource ('a named preview URL'), and the destination ('a sandbox session and port'). The parenthetical '(advanced routing)' helpfully distinguishes it from simpler preview tools like tenki_open_preview or tenki_create_preview_url, making the tool's role clear.

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 phrase 'advanced routing' implies this is for advanced binding scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to sibling alternatives such as tenki_unbind_preview_url, tenki_open_preview, or tenki_create_preview_url. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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