figure_library_apply_bind_globalApply a reviewed binding plan to globally bind figure templates into a project, using operation IDs and stale-plan checks for idempotent, current-only updates.
Apply the exact reviewed binding plan using operation-id idempotency and stale-plan checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planDigest | Yes | ||
| operationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description adds 'operation-id idempotency' and 'stale-plan checks', explaining the idempotency mechanism and safety check. It doesn't contradict the idempotentHint annotation.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with action, no filler.
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?
The description covers the immediate action but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., need for a reviewed plan from plan_bind_global) and what a successful application returns. Given the plan/apply pair and lack of output schema, it's adequate but not fully complete.
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 has 0% coverage. Description explains operationId's role via 'operation-id idempotency' but doesn't explain planDigest's meaning or how to obtain it. The pattern for planDigest (SHA-64 hex) is visible but no semantic clue.
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 action: 'Apply the exact reviewed binding plan' with 'binding' naming it as the global library binding. It distinguishes from siblings like plan_bind_global and other apply_* tools by specifying 'binding plan' and idempotency details.
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?
It implies usage after a review and planning step, and the idempotency/stale-plan checks give invocation context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the siblings and name make the plan/apply pattern clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.