Binds the current user turn to a durable WorkIdentity in the control plane, preventing workers from self-minting authority.
Control-plane bind the current user turn to durable WorkIdentity. Workers cannot self-mint authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| work_ref | Yes | ||
| request_text | Yes | ||
| controller_token | No | ||
| controller_actor_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses one meaningful behavioral fact: this is the control-plane authority-granting path and workers cannot self-mint authority. However, it says nothing about side effects, idempotency, required privileges for the controller fields, failure modes, or what happens to prior bindings.
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 with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence earns its place as scoping context rather than repeating the name.
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?
Despite having an output schema, this is a complex authority-binding operation with 6 params, 5 required, no annotations, and 0% param coverage. The description omits prerequisites, mode values, token semantics, and error behavior, leaving it far too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description explains none of them. work_ref, mode, actor_id, controller_actor_id, and controller_token all go undocumented in both schema and prose, so an agent has no semantic guidance for any argument.
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: 'bind the current user turn to durable WorkIdentity.' The action is identifiable, but the jargon ('Control-plane', 'WorkIdentity') and the absence of any reference to the near-identical sibling bind_contract_turn leave the agent without sibling differentiation.
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 second sentence ('Workers cannot self-mint authority') is a rationale/constraint, not when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of preconditions, no when-not-to-use, and no routing toward or away from bind_contract_turn or enter_work/begin_work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.