plc_unbind_io

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description's key contribution beyond that is 'Stage' — clarifying the change is deferred rather than applied immediately, which reconciles a 'removal' tool with destructiveHint=false. It does not disclose what happens on commit, whether re-staging is a no-op, or how an expected_revision mismatch is handled.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the transactional hint appended after the semicolon. Nothing is redundant, though the semicolon clause compresses two distinct facts into one statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the three required parameters are few. However, for a staged mutation tied to a transaction lifecycle, the description omits how the transaction is created/committed and what a revision conflict means, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 33%: expected_revision is documented in the schema, but transaction_id and variable_id have no descriptions. The prose only loosely gestures at them ('global variable', 'same transaction') without explaining where transaction_id comes from or what variable_id identifies. With coverage below 50%, the description should compensate and does not.

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: 'Stage removal of a global variable hardware address'. The inverse relationship to plc_bind_io is implicit in the name and made explicit by the pairing note, so an agent can tell it apart from the bind sibling. It stops short of stating what a 'hardware address' binding is, but the scope is 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?

The description gives one concrete usage pattern: pair with bind_io in the same transaction. That implies a staging/commit workflow, but it never names the transaction lifecycle tools (plc_begin_transaction, plc_commit_changes) or says when to prefer this over a direct edit. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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