cf_bind_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutating operation it discloses nothing about required permissions, whether the app is restaged/restarted, whether binding is idempotent or errors on an already-bound service, or what the config parameter changes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately sized for the operation. However, it is so terse that it brushes against under-specification rather than exemplary conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a state-changing bind operation in a 28-tool Cloud Foundry suite, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, side effects on the bound app, and error/success behavior that an agent needs to invoke this correctly.

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%, so all three parameters (appName, serviceName, config) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how names are resolved or what the JSON config accepts, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Bind') and both resources ('service instance' and 'application'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the mirror-image sibling cf_unbind_service, but the verb makes 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must be logged in via cf_login and targeted at an org/space, service instance must already exist), and no mention of alternatives such as cf_create_service. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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