ibmcloud_cf_unbind_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Unbind a service from an application' without disclosing any side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or consequences. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient; the agent is left unaware of what changes occur in the service binding.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context, though this is a conciseness preference rather than a structural issue.

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?

This is a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description fully explains the primary action. But it omits any nuance like the fact that unbinding does not delete the service instance, or that the app and service must be in the same space. Such context would help, but overall the information is minimally sufficient.

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%: both app_name and service_instance are described with meaningful labels ('Application name' and 'Service instance name'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Unbind a service from an application.' This is specific and unambiguous, using a strong verb and resource. It is implicitly distinguished from the sibling tool ibmcloud_cf_bind_service by the action, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, that it is the inverse of bind_service, or any context about required prior steps (e.g., targeting an org/space, the service must already be bound). The description offers only the action itself, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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