unassign_instance_firewall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only the HTTP verb, not what is actually destroyed (just the association, not the firewall or instance) or any permission/error behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence restates the first almost verbatim ('Remove a specific instance from a firewall'), so it spends a line on redundancy rather than new information.

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-identifier detach operation with full schema coverage and complete annotations, nothing critical is missing. Only the side-effect scope (association removed vs. resource deleted) 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 100% with both required identifiers documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no path-parameter mapping or hints beyond what firewallId/instanceId already state.

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 and resource ('Remove instance from a firewall') and gives the raw DELETE endpoint, which pins down exactly what is affected. It does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling assign_instance_firewall, but the name and endpoint make the direction unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation — call this to detach an existing instance from a firewall, the inverse of assign_instance_firewall — but the description never says when to use it, what preconditions apply (instance must currently be assigned), or what happens on an already-unassigned instance. No alternative is named.

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