supportpages_bind_workspace

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it refuses to silently change an existing destination, which tells the agent the operation is guarded against accidental rebinding and may fail rather than mutate.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. Zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose and the key refusal behavior for a destructive, open-world operation; only minor gaps remain around prerequisites (what 'configured' requires) and consequences of a failed bind.

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 0%, so the single project_id parameter is undocumented in structured fields. The description compensates only partially, implying project_id is the remote project target but giving no format or constraint detail (the schema itself enforces a numeric pattern).

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 (bind) and resource (this configured local workspace to a remote project). Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from creation siblings like create_project or init, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the step that associates an already-configured local workspace with a remote project. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives are named among the many project/workspace siblings (init, create_project, connect_repository).

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