unPublishServiceBinding

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is outward-facing and immediate, and all callers of the endpoint stop working. This goes beyond a simple 'unpublish' label to clarify the real-world impact and immediacy, which is useful for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action, then adds the key behavioral consequence. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the effect on callers, and the immediacy. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the annotations already signal destructiveness)Skip. Overall, this is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (name and version), including their types and descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Take a published service offline.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from the sibling publishServiceBinding, which performs the opposite operation. The phrasing leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description conveys the immediate, outward-facing effect, which implies when to use it (when a service must stop being served). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus an alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is acceptable but leaves usage direction implied rather than explicit.

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