cf_unbind_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and provides none. It doesn't state whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires specific permissions or a targeted org/space, whether the app must be stopped, or what happens to associated service keys or environment variables.

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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally helpful.

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 state-mutating operation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits side effects, preconditions, and any note about the inverse relationship with cf_bind_service that would help an agent use it 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 appName and serviceName are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g., naming conventions, whether names must match existing resources). 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Unbind a service instance from an application'. An agent immediately understands the operation. It does not, however, name or contrast with its sibling cf_bind_service, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., whether the binding must already exist, whether the app must be stopped). Usage is only implied by the verb 'unbind' and the existence of cf_bind_service as the inverse operation.

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