gitee_unstar_repo

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention important traits like authentication requirements, idempotency (whether unstarring an already unstarred repo is an error), or any side effects. The minimal description provides no transparency beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise (four words). While it is front-loaded and easy to parse, it could include brief contextual information without harming conciseness. It earns points for brevity but loses one for being overly sparse.

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 simplicity (two string params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks context about authentication, error states, or idempotency. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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% for the two parameters ('owner' and 'repo'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not detract. No extra semantic value is contributed.

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 'Unstar a repository' uses a specific verb ('Unstar') and a clear resource ('repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitee_star_repo (opposite action) and gitee_unstar_gist (different resource), making its purpose immediately clear.

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 gitee_star_repo or gitee_check_starred. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria.

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