unbind_network_from_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the [risk=high] marker, the side effect that it captures the prior template binding for undo, and the dry_run preview affordance. It doesn't describe what happens to the network's config once unbound.

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 [WRITE][risk=high] tag and the core purpose, followed by undo semantics and a clean Args block. Every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description supplies the risk level, reversibility path (undo rebinding), preview option, and all param meanings. Only the post-condition state of the network is left implicit.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all three parameters: network_id, dry_run, and target ('Target name from config; omit for the default'). The guidance on omitting target adds meaning the bare schema does not.

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+resource: 'Unbind a network from its config template.' It even names the inverse operation ('rebind') and points at undo behavior, so an agent can distinguish it from bind_network_to_template and the undo_* siblings immediately.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context (unbinding, with rebind as the inverse and undo rebinding to the captured template), and flags dry_run for previewing. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools (bind_network_to_template / undo_apply) as the routing alternative, so it is strong but not fully explicit.

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