unregister_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (likely yes, as it removes auto-sync), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output includes (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action, which is ideal for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional inference.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage (parameters are documented but without semantic context). Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'owner' and 'name' mean in this context, but it doesn't contradict the schema either, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Unregister') and resource ('a repo from auto-sync'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_sync_server' or 'list_tracked_repos', which could involve related sync operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if the repo must be registered first), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'register_repo' or 'stop_sync_server', leaving usage context unclear.

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