starRepo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the underlying event structure (NIP-25 kind 7, tags e+k+p, content +) and the dependency on a published announcement, which adds transparency beyond the name. However, it omits effects like reversibility, failure behavior if no 30617 event exists, and any side effects on existing stars. The disclosure is partial.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and packs necessary protocol details into a parenthetical, while the second states the prerequisite. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause carries meaningful information.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is relatively lean. It explains what the tool does and a key prerequisite, but does not describe return values, error cases (e.g., missing 30617 event), or behavior when the announcement is not found. For a mutation tool with no structured metadata, more completeness would be helpful; the description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 80% (4 of 5 params documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the relationship between parameters: it states that it acts on the 'latest kind 30617 event,' which clarifies how repoId and ownerPubkey are used to locate the event. It also explains the prerequisite that the repo announcement must be published, giving further semantic context to the lookup parameters. This is valuable beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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: 'Star a repo' with a specific verb and resource. It further specifies the technical implementation (NIP-25 kind 7 on the latest kind 30617 event), distinguishing it from sibling tools like unstarRepo, watchRepo, and listStars. The purpose is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage context by stating 'Requires a published repo announcement on relays,' which is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., unstarRepo) or mention when not to use it. The usage is largely implied by the tool name and reputation, but no direct guidance is given.

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