source_binding_accept

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

The statement that 'Every candidate is re-resolved against current source before a SourceRef is created' discloses a non-obvious internal behavior, which is valuable because there are no annotations. But with zero annotation coverage, the description still omits important transparency details such as what happens when re-resolution fails, whether persistence is atomic or partial, and any permission or mutation implications.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds an important behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and no part is redundant given the schema already contains parameter types and constraints.

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?

This is a mutation/persistence tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full context burden. It fails to cover several needed details: what happens if a candidate does not match the current source, whether operation is transactional, the meaning of includeStructured, and what the tool returns or confirms. The description is too sparse for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema.

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 large majority of the 7 parameters are not mentioned. Only 'AST source binding candidates' and 'a Block' loosely point to bindings and blockId; actor, reason, projectRoot, taskContextId, and includeStructured have no semantic explanation in the description, leaving an agent to guess their roles.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Persist'), the target resource ('AST source binding candidates for a Block'), and the transformation ('SourceRef is created'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling source_binding_suggest via 'explicitly selected' and 'Persist', but it never names that sibling or another alternative, so it falls just short of full 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 phrase 'explicitly selected ... candidates' implies the tool should be used when a user has already chosen binding candidates, and the re-resolution note sets a precondition. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references sibling alternatives such as source_binding_suggest.

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