unPublishServiceBinding

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. It only states the action without revealing any consequences, reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates state, as seen in the sibling 'publishServiceBinding' context.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, but that is captured in other dimensions; as pure conciseness, it is efficient.

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?

Although the tool is simple with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the lack of annotations means the description must compensate by explaining behavioral context. It fails to mention what 'unpublish' entails, whether it is destructive, reversible, or requires special permissions, making the tool incomplete for safe 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 100%, with both 'name' and 'version' parameters having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the literal action, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given that the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 'Unpublishes' and a clear resource 'service binding', making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It also naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'publishServiceBinding' by being the inverse operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a single declarative sentence with no contextual information about typical use cases or conditions that would warrant unpublishing a service binding.

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