bind_variable_to_paint

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds important context: bindings are on the paint, not the node; paint must be SOLID; returns { ok, nodeId }. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds critical information.

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 no output schema, the description states the return format. It covers the key constraint (SOLID paint) and the mechanism. However, it doesn't detail error cases (e.g., index out of bounds) or non-SOLID paint behavior, but overall it's sufficiently complete for a focused tool.

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 the description adds significant value: explains target (fills/strokes), index selects paint, variableId null means unbind, and the SOLID requirement. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 binds a COLOR variable to a SOLID fill or stroke paint, and can unbind by passing null. It distinguishes itself from bind_variable_to_node by explaining that fill/stroke colour bindings are on the paint, not the node.

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 explicitly contrasts with bind_variable_to_node (which covers scalar fields), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also mentions the requirement that the paint must be SOLID, implying when not to use it.

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