bind_token

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does volunteer the key auth requirement: an admin token of the target profile is needed, plus the schema names the BREWPAGE_OWNER_TOKEN default. It stops short of explaining what happens if a token is already bound, whether the binding is reversible, or what the call returns.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the prerequisite second. The only inefficiency is the opaque '(as publish)' clause, which costs words without clarifying anything.

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 two-parameter credential-binding mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and authentication but leaves gaps: no statement on overwrite behavior for an existing binding, failure modes for an invalid admin token, or what the caller gets back. Adequate but not sufficient for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that the token being added is the owner token and that the second credential must be an admin token of that specific profile. This connects the two parameters conceptually rather than merely restating them.

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: adding an owner token to a BrewPage profile, which is concrete enough for an agent to act on. The parenthetical '(as publish)' is cryptic and the description never differentiates this from the sibling mint_token, so it stops short of a 5.

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 supplies one real prerequisite ('Needs an admin token of that profile'), which implies when the tool is callable, but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like mint_token or publish_html. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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