bind_variable_to_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the accepted variable types and the underlying setBoundVariable call, plus a hint about preserving a fill via a FLOAT-variable token bind. It does not mention permission requirements, failure/type-mismatch behavior, or what state changes on the node, so disclosure is partial 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the API signature; every clause adds usable content. The parenthetical about opacity/color is slightly dense but still earns its place as an example.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete — it omits error/precondition behavior and nodeId/variableId semantics. It covers enough to attempt a call but not enough to call it safely in edge cases.

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 0% with 3 parameters, so the description should compensate. It maps well to the 'property' parameter via examples (opacity, padding, radius, spacing, fontSize) and references a 'variable', but says nothing about nodeId format or variableId expectations, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 ('Bind a ... variable to a node property') and names the underlying API call setBoundVariable(property, variable), so the action is unambiguous. It enumerates the accepted variable types (FLOAT/STRING/BOOLEAN/EASING/TIMING), which helps distinguish it from the color-binding siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from bind_color_variable_to_fill/stroke by name.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('Use property "opacity" to token-bind layer opacity' and 'Also used for padding, radius, spacing, and fontSize'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to bind_color_variable_to_fill/stroke as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the routing between sibling bind tools.

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