devicesBindDevice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a binding operation but doesn't mention whether this is a write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and basic usage. It's front-loaded with the core purpose statement. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'binding' means in this context, what the expected result is, whether there are side effects, or what happens to existing bindings. The agent lacks crucial information to understand the tool's behavior and consequences.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'resource ID and the fields to update' but doesn't clarify which parameters correspond to which concepts or provide additional context about parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Bind') and the target ('a specific device to a node'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling 'devicesUnbindDevice' by specifying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention other device-related tools like 'devicesGetDevices'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, when binding is appropriate, or what happens if the device is already bound. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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