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

With annotations already flagging destructive/idempotent/non-read-only, the description adds material extra context: the stored credential is deleted too, the repository's MCP file is NOT modified, and the operation is reversible via re-binding. It also discloses the config:write authorization requirement — exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the effect (delete binding and credential), followed by the non-effect (repo file untouched) and the prerequisite. No filler sentences.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effects, reversibility, and the required permission — everything an agent needs before invoking it. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both projectId and serverName are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond implying that serverName identifies the binding to remove; 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 (delete/unbind) and resource (an MCP server binding) and clearly differentiates itself from bind_mcp_server and list_mcp_bindings by describing the removal action and its consequence. An agent can pick it out of the sibling list without opening a schema.

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 clear context: it removes the binding and credential so no role gets the server on the next run, and states the precondition 'Requires config:write.' It implies when to use it (to undo a binding) but never explicitly names bind_mcp_server as the counterpart operation.

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