Select a computer

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

Annotations only declare idempotent/destructive hints; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the binding is session-scoped and persistent across later calls, and that the response carries status and screen resolution (valuable since there is no output schema). It does not state permission requirements or behavior when the computer is stopped/absent.

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 tight sentences: the primary effect (session binding) is front-loaded, followed by the return payload. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers what an agent needs: the state change, its scope, and the response contents. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (invalid/stopped computer, effect on prior binding).

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% and the schema already explains computer_id is 'The id from list_computers.' The description adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a computer to this session) plus its downstream effect (later calls can omit computer_id) and what it returns. This clearly separates it from list_computers/get_computer, which read computer data without establishing session context.

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 makes the usage context clear: you call it to establish a session-level binding so subsequent calls can omit computer_id. It does not name explicit alternatives (e.g. passing computer_id per call) or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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