secret_unbind

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two meaningful traits: the operation is atomic, and it does not delete the underlying secret value. This goes beyond the schema by informing the agent about side effects and transactional guarantees. It could be richer (e.g., error behavior or what happens if no binding exists), but for a two-parameter tool the disclosure is solid.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then adds the atomicity and safety qualifiers. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a detailed schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is removed, from where, atomically, and what is preserved. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for correct invocation given the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema; it merely restates the general operation. The schema already documents 'secret' as the bound parameter name and lists valid endpoint formats, so no significant semantic gap exists.

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 ('remove') and resource ('generated secret binding'), and defines the exact scope: multiple OpenServerless endpoints. It also includes a key qualifier, 'without deleting the secret value', which clearly distinguishes unbinding from secret deletion. This is unambiguous even without consulting the schema.

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 implies its use case: when a secret binding must be removed from endpoints while keeping the secret value intact. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like secret_bind or secret_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Clear context is present, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance.

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