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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the refusal condition when a service is unretired and the `applications.deploy` permission requirement. Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the description's job is to add policy details, which it does. Mild tension with destructiveHint=false for a 'Remove' verb, but a binding removal is arguably reversible metadata rather than irreversible data loss, so this is not a clear contradiction.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint and the permission. Every clause carries information the agent needs; no filler.

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 2-parameter mutation with no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the auth requirement, which is enough to call it correctly. It could go one step further and note the effect of a stale `expected_revision`.

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%: `consumer_id` and `expected_revision` are both documented in the schema, including the pointer to `list_service_consumers`. The description adds nothing about parameter format or concurrency semantics (e.g., what a revision mismatch does), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('consumer binding'), and explicitly names the operation's twin command (`ankra services consumers unbind`). The sibling `bind_service_consumer` is cleanly distinguished by the 'unbind' framing.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use: 'A binding an unretired service still uses is refused: retire the service first', pointing the agent at retirement before unbinding. It also states the required permission. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as `bind_service_consumer` for the reverse direction.

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