plan_experiment

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

Read literally, 'then run it' indicates a side-effecting execution, which contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true. The description also does not disclose what 'bind' produces, whether anything is actually executed, or what state changes are possible. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy, and the workflow context is front-loaded. It loses one point because its brevity contributes to ambiguity.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested parameters object, and an output schema, this description is incomplete: it never explains what 'bind' means, whether it actually runs the experiment, why readOnlyHint is true, or how it relates to run_experiment. An agent cannot reliably decide when or how to invoke it.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds only a contextual clue that the experiment and adapter come from prior discovery steps, but it does not clarify hypothesis_id or add semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a concrete operation ('bind a declared experiment; then run it') and locates it after workflow/capability discovery, so it is more than a tautology. However, 'bind' is undefined jargon and 'then run it' overlaps with the sibling run_experiment without clarifying the distinction.

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?

It gives an implied workflow position ('After workflow and capability discovery') that hints when to call it. But it does not state when not to use it, how it differs from run_experiment, or what alternatives exist, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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