bind_variable_to_node

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that variable's resolvedType must match the field's type, explains unbinding via null, and mentions the cornerRadius special behavior (binding all four corners at once). It also returns { ok, nodeId }. It does not detail error behavior or overwrite semantics, but the provided context is substantial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently includes examples, alternatives, constraints, and return format with no unnecessary verbiage.

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 (binding fields, type constraints, unbinding), the description is remarkably complete: it covers the action, examples, constraint, alternatives, source of IDs, and return value. No output schema exists, but the description provides the return shape, making it fully usable.

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?

While schema covers parameters at 100%, the description adds meaning by listing valid field examples, highlighting the special cornerRadius case, and clarifying that variableId can be null to unbind. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions and helps the agent understand valid values and behavior.

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 identifies the tool's action (bind/unbind a variable to/from a node field), provides concrete field examples, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool bind_variable_to_paint. The verb 'bind' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (binding a node field) and explicitly directs users to bind_variable_to_paint for fill/stroke colors. It also gives a prerequisite by referencing get_variable_defs for obtaining bindable variable IDs, providing clear guidance on alternatives and prerequisites.

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