unbind_widget_from_viewmodel

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

Annotations already carry idempotentHint/destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: idempotency semantics ('already-absent is an honest success') and the persistence implications implied by the saved/save_error return fields. It does not restate the PIE-refusal risk (carried in the force param), but that is schema-documented.

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 paragraphs: purpose and identity first, then the return contract. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations, and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return shape (already_existed, removed, binding_count, saved, save_error), and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no explicit mention of whether an MCP-side transaction/undo wraps the authoring-state change.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the detailed 'force' PIE-refusal text. The description's index/GUID mention plus the 'primary' designation mirrors what the schema states, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') plus resource ('FMVVMBlueprintViewBinding from a Widget BP's MVVM authoring state') and explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of bind_widget_to_viewmodel. An agent can distinguish it from sibling remove_viewmodel or remove_widget_property_binding without opening schemas.

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 concrete selection guidance between the two identifiers ('by index (primary) or binding GUID') and names the sibling it inverts. It does not state when to prefer this over remove_viewmodel/remove_widget_property_binding, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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