bind_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: fills/strokes bind to the first paint as COLOR, shortcut field semantics, and null variableId unbinds. But it omits whether rebinding overwrites, permission/type prerequisites, error behavior, and idempotency.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by relevant field, shortcut, and unbind details in a single efficient paragraph. The field enumeration duplicates the schema enum, but the shortcut definitions and unbind instruction earn their place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more responsibility. It covers purpose, field targets, shortcuts, and unbind, but misses usage context and prerequisites like matching variable types or node eligibility. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by expanding the shortcut fields ('padding' = 4 sides, 'cornerRadius' = 4 corners) and clarifying that fills/strokes bind to the first paint as COLOR. It repeats the null-to-unbind behavior already in the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Bind') and resources ('variable', 'node property'), and the field list clarifies the scope of binding targets. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this operation from sibling variable tools like set_variable_value or create_variable, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides only parameter-level guidance (pass variableId null to unbind). It never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as node type or variable type compatibility.

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