add_binding

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

Because the annotations already declare that this is a mutating tool that does not access the open world, the description only needs to add context. It usefully explains the linear input-to-output mapping behavior (the inputMin→outputMin … inputMax→outputMax model), but it does not cover what happens on duplicate bindings, whether an existing binding is replaced, or how binding evaluation is affected at runtime.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does before the mapping detail. The notation "inputMin→outputMin … inputMax→outputMax" is compact but slightly cryptic without explanation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 19-parameter tool whose schema already documents 84% of those parameters, the description does enough by identifying the tool's purpose and the range-mapping semantics that the parameters implement. The remaining gaps—conditional fields for the source/target kind combinations, revision conflicts, and the absence of an output schema—are not addressed, but they are moderate rather than fatal.

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 84%, so per-parameter documentation largely carries the load and the baseline is 3. The description does add conceptual meaning by tying inputMin/inputMax/outputMin/outputMax into a single linear-remap sentence, but it says nothing about the discriminators that drive the sourceType/targetType enums or about sessionId, requestId, and expectedRevision.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Add a linear binding") and explains the remapping mechanic, so the agent knows exactly what the tool creates. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely related sibling add_parameter_wire or add_trigger, so the agent still has to infer which of the three wiring tools applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_parameter_wire, add_trigger, or add_modifier, and no prerequisites (for example, whether the source layer or parameter must already exist). The usage is only implicit in the tool's mechanics.

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