test_capability_binding

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that nothing is persisted in the preview form, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it doesn't describe the exact nature of the 'health test' outcome or whether the saved-binding mode has any side effects. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's non-persistence note is a useful addition, but more could be said about the return value.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the usage context following. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is complex (8 parameters, two modes, no output schema), and the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the two invocation styles, the non-persistence caveat, and the recommended timing. It doesn't describe the exact format of the 'outcome' returned, but given no output schema and the fact that the outcome is likely self-explanatory, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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% description coverage for all 8 parameters, each with a clear purpose. The description groups parameters into two modes (binding_id vs. inline definition fields) and explains their role, but it doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Run a health test on one capability binding and return the outcome.' It distinguishes between testing a saved binding (via binding_id) and preview-testing an inline definition, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_capability_binding, update, or route_capabilities. The resource and action are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this after create_capability_binding or update, before routing traffic to the binding.' It also explains the two usage modes (saved vs. inline) and clarifies that the preview form does not persist anything, which tells the agent exactly when and how to invoke it. This is clear and actionable.

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