set_tooltip_field_binding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals the core side effect ('Writes the tooltip page's pageBinding {type=Tooltip, parameters}') and the dependency on prior setup, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether existing bindings are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any permissions required, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 concise, using three sentences that each deliver distinct information: what the tool does, the format of the key parameter, and the required prerequisite/validation. It is front-loaded and avoids filler.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the essential context: the action, the param format, the underlying write operation, the necessary precondition, and a verification step. While it lacks alternative tool guidance and side-effect warnings, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it safely and 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?

The schema already covers 'fields' and 'tooltipPage' with descriptions identical to the tool description's parameter notes. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the JSON schema provides, and the 'reportSessionId' parameter remains undocumented. Since schema coverage is only 67%, a more compensating description would have been better, but it does not make things worse.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Bind' plus the resource ('TOOLTIP PAGE') and the exact behavior ('to specific fields so it only shows when hovering those fields'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like set_visual_tooltip_page or set_page_type, which operate at a different level or purpose.

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 explicit prerequisites ('page should already be set_page_type tooltip') and a validation step ('Verify in Desktop'). This tells the agent when it is appropriate to use the tool and what to check, though it does not mention alternatives or 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.