Link a work assignment to a contract to enable independent progress tracking. Use this to establish the assignment-contract relationship required for acceptance review.
Bind a work assignment to a contract for independence tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_id | Yes | ||
| actor_role | Yes | ||
| contract_id | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes | ||
| base_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the action is 'for independence tracking' and does not disclose whether the operation mutates state, requires specific authorization, is reversible, or triggers downstream effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient and readable, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing important operational and parameter detail.
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 mutation-like operation with five required parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin to enable correct invocation. It omits when to use the tool, what binding operationally involves, and parameter semantics; the presence of an output schema only covers return-format expectations, not invocation requirements.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the five required parameters. The roles of actor_id, actor_role, and base_revision in particular are left entirely to inference, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Bind') and clearly identifies the resource relationship (work assignment to contract). The phrase 'for independence tracking' provides additional context about why the binding matters, making the operation reasonably distinguishable from generic tool names.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 40 sibling tools in the contract/assignment domain, the agent is given no routing context, preconditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.