bind_component_property

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining type-matching requirements, node-type constraints, unbinding via null, and the return format. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, very concise. It front-loads the core action, then provides essential details in a logical order. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, mapping, constraints, unbinding, and return values. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, but description significantly enhances understanding: it maps enum values to types (BOOLEAN, TEXT, INSTANCE_SWAP), specifies node constraints, explains propertyId format and null usage. This goes well 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: attaching a declared component property to a sublayer field. It specifies the verb 'attach,' the resource 'component property,' and the target 'sublayer field.' It distinguishes from 'add_component_property' by mentioning 'from add_component_property,' and from other binding tools by focusing on component properties.

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 gives clear usage context: it must be used after adding a property, can be called once per layer, and can remove binding with null. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'bind_variable_to_node,' but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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