Apply confirmed Local workspace binding

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that after this first binding, subsequent MCP starts reuse the same directory, which is a persistent side effect. It does not contradict the annotations and adds value beyond them.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the first states the exact apply action, and the second explains the persistent consequence that justifies why this tool exists.

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 two required parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no explicit mention of prerequisites or sibling alternatives, the description is not fully self-sufficient. An agent would need domain knowledge or external documentation to know how to produce planDigest and operationId, and where this fits relative to figure_library_plan_bind_workspace and figure_library_apply_bind_global.

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 planDigest or operationId at all. The name 'planDigest' hints that it identifies the reviewed plan, and 'exact reviewed' loosely connects to it, but the agent is left without guidance on how to obtain these values or what operationId refers to.

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 and resource: 'Apply the exact reviewed workspace binding plan.' It also adds the persistence consequence, 'later MCP starts reuse the same directory across projects,' which clarifies the tool's role. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling apply_bind_global, so it relies on the title for the Local vs. Global 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 'After this first confirmation' gives clear contextual guidance that this is a one-time post-confirmation apply, and the note that later MCP starts reuse the same directory implies this should not be repeated on every start. It does not explicitly name alternatives like figure_library_plan_bind_workspace or figure_library_apply_bind_global, but the workflow placement is clear enough.

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