unbind_workspace

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. The description implies a mutating/destructive action by 'Remove', but it doesn't disclose side effects—what happens to bound tasks, contexts, or governance entities when the binding is removed. It also doesn't clarify whether the operation is reversible or requires permissions. Beyond the obvious mutation, there's limited disclosure.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation with a single parameter. No redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive/unbinding operation, the description is minimal. Even with an output schema present, this tool removes a binding that could have downstream effects on other entities (contexts, tasks, governance). The description should clarify what happens to associated data and how 'path' is used. It's adequate for a 'minimum viable' tool but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether unbinding is the right action.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description doesn't explain what 'path' refers to—a workspace path? a repo path? something else? The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field. However, with only one parameter, the penalty is modest, and the tool name provides some context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single-param nature but the description fails to clarify what path denotes.

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 'Remove a workspace→repo binding.' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource (workspace→repo binding). It clearly states the action. It does provide some sibling differentiation since there's a 'bind_workspace' sibling, making the pairing intuitive. However, it lacks detail on what 'workspace' and 'repo' concepts are.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as unbind vs remove_governance or delete_entity. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., must be bound first) or mention that 'bind_workspace' is the complementary sibling. There is no context about whether this affects tasks, contexts, or other entities linked to the workspace.

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