set_bound_variable

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It states the tool modifies node properties but does not mention side effects (e.g., unbinding previous variables), permissions, or state changes. This is insufficient 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that covers both use cases. It could be improved by front-loading the primary action, but it is not verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (two modes, 6 parameters) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like node existence. The description alone leaves agents underinformed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds the overarching distinction between binding and mode setting, which clarifies the relationship between parameters like 'variableId' (binding) vs 'collectionId' and 'modeId' (mode setting). This adds meaningful 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: binding a variable to a node's property or setting explicit variable mode. It uses specific verbs ('Bind', 'set') and resources ('variable', 'node property'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'manage_variables' or 'set_fill_color'.

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 mentions two modes (binding vs mode setting) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'manage_variables' or direct property setters. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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