memoryguard_binding_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that this creates an active AgentBinding record, and explains that undo goes through CLI/GUI. It does not mention idempotency or return behavior, but the core mutation is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary action and effect are front-loaded, and the routing guidance is compact and directly useful.

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 simple create operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, effect, and alternative paths. It lacks explicit return/output details, but no output schema exists and the agent can verify through binding_list.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Bind an agent instance to a share_group') and its effect ('Creates an AgentBinding record (active)'), and explicitly differentiates from binding_list. The verb and resource are unambiguous and distinguish this from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly routes read-only listing to binding_list and unbinding to CLI/GUI, making both when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear. This prevents an agent from attempting listing or unbinding with this tool.

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