Plan Local workspace binding

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already annotated, the description adds non-obvious behavior: this validation happens only on first-time machine confirmation, later starts reuse the saved locator, and the tool never infers the current project folder. This advances an agent's understanding beyond the annotated 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?

Three short sentences, all informative: purpose, lifecycle constraint, and an explicit non-behavior. No redundant filler; the most important verb-resource statement is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter validation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when it may be invoked, the no-inference constraint, and the meaning of the parameter. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents workspaceDirectory as an absolute native path, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by requiring the value to be user-selected and warning that the tool never infers the current project folder, clarifying why the parameter must be explicitly supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('user-selected Local workspace directory'), clearly identifying the tool's job. The 'Local workspace' wording and 'Validate' action distinguish it from sibling plan/apply and global variants without needing to inspect them.

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 explicitly restricts use to first-time machine confirmation ('First-time machine confirmation only') and rules out later starts by noting they reuse the saved locator. It does not name an alternative tool such as apply_bind_workspace or plan_bind_global, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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