inspiration_bind

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that binding uses the same interface as the editor, that the change is not persisted until save_project, and that the submit window auto-populates. It does not cover error/duplicate-binding behavior or whether the project must already be open.

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?

Two sentences that front-load the core action, then the persistence step, then the alternative path. The parenthetical asides are slightly dense but every clause conveys usable information.

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 a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action, persistence requirement, downstream effect, and the alternative route. Only edge cases like existing bindings or failure modes are absent.

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 instance_id/project_path mutual exclusivity and the inspiration_id format are already documented. The description reinforces the binding role of inspiration_id but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: binding an inspiration (by inspiration_id) to the current project. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_prepare by explaining that the latter picks inspirations by name at submission time.

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?

Explicitly gives the alternative path: if you only need to choose an inspiration during submission, pass inspiration to submit_prepare instead. It also names the required follow-up (save_project) so the agent knows the full flow.

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