Plan global ScientificFigureLibrary binding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value by disclosing the non-destructive flat-v1 copy in migration staging and the implicit project-directory guard. Reinforces rather than contradicts the safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary validation action and directly followed by the key non-destructive caveat. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 planning tool paired with figure_library_apply_bind_global and backed by rich annotations, the description covers validation, staging behavior, and scope constraints. It doesn't describe the plan's output shape, but the plan/apply convention and sibling naming make the contract clear.

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 descriptions already cover libraryDirectory and legacySourceDirectory (67% coverage), and the description adds 'flat-v1' and 'migration staging' terminology that aids interpretation. However, migrationMode remains undocumented in both the schema and description, and the description provides no parameter-level semantics beyond that.

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?

Uses specific verbs 'Validate' and 'stage' tied to the resource (global Library directory), and scopes itself as a read-only plan for binding a global Library. The phrase 'never chooses a project directory implicitly' differentiates it from sibling tools that might target project directories.

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?

Clearly describes when the plan runs: validating the user-selected global directory and optionally staging a copy. The 'never chooses a project directory implicitly' gives a when-not-to-use signal, though no alternative tools are named explicitly.

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