unstar

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about authentication requirements, idempotency when the repository is not currently starred, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on an invalid or nonexistent repo reference — all of which matter before calling a destructive write.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the usage condition in a trailing parenthetical. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical slightly crowds the core statement.

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 one-parameter tool the schema covers the input adequately, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should still explain the mutation's side effects and failure modes. It covers the 'what' and a hint of 'when' but leaves the behavioral contract incomplete.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already supplies the format example 'owner/repo'. The description adds no further meaning about the reference format or validation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource pair: removing a star from a GitHub repository (撤销...星标). The action is unambiguous and the sibling names (check_star, ensure_starred, star_status) make it clear this is the inverse of starred-write operations, though the description never references those siblings directly.

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?

It gives one usage trigger — when the user mis-clicked or explicitly asks to remove the star (误点或用户要求取消时使用). That is a real context cue, but there is no exclusion, no mention of what to do if the repo is not starred, and no pointer to any sibling tool for alternative workflows.

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