create_binding_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully explain that the binding link is delivered via the chosen method (sent to the user or returned directly), but omits permission/auth requirements, what happens if the user already has a credential, and any idempotency or failure behavior.

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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the lookup hint placed last. Nothing is wasted, though it is brief enough that a little more detail would not have hurt.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic flow but leaves notable gaps: response shape (since no output schema exists, it should ideally describe what the caller receives), the 15-minute short-code expiry surfaced in the schema, and required authority to create a binding for another user.

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 description coverage is 100%, so user_id, delivery_method, and ttl_seconds are already well documented. The description only restates that user_id and delivery method must be specified, adding no format or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a credential binding job') and adds the outcome ('provision a new passkey for a user'), which cleanly separates it from the read-only get_binding_job sibling. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from other creation tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides ordering guidance ('Use list_users to find the user_id first') and notes the delivery method determines how the link reaches the user. However, it offers no when-not conditions, prerequisites (permissions/issuer identity), or guidance on choosing between delivery paths beyond noting they exist.

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