bind_component_property

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description reveals key behaviors: the null-to-unbind mechanism, the requirement for the property type to match the field, and the need for the property to exist on the containing component. It also discloses the return shape. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it could mention whether existing bindings are overwritten.

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 a single dense paragraph with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Attach'), then systematically explains type mappings, repeatability, unbinding, constraints, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, this description is complete. It covers preconditions, field/type mappings, how to unbind, and return value. It also situates itself within the component-property workflow by referencing add_component_property. There are no significant gaps.

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 already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by mapping each field enum value to specific property types and node types (e.g., 'characters' requires a TEXT node), which is not in the schema. This adds real semantic value, earning a 4.

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 tool's function: attaching a declared component property to a sublayer field so it drives that layer. It specifies exactly which field maps to which property type (visible for BOOLEAN, characters for TEXT, mainComponent for INSTANCE_SWAP) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_component_property and edit_component_property by focusing on the binding action.

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 provides explicit usage context: it references add_component_property as the prerequisite, explains valid field/type combinations, notes that the same property can be bound to multiple layers, and gives special handling for null to remove bindings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select the correct tool.

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