unstarRepo

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

The description discloses the underlying Nostr event type and content, but with no annotations it must carry the full burden. It does not mention auth requirements (e.g., privkey), side effects on existing events, or return values, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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. It front-loads the core action, includes necessary technical detail, and avoids any wordiness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential action and event format, but lacks information on prerequisites, how the operation is executed (e.g., publishing to relays), or what happens after unstarring. This is adequate but not 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 coverage is 80%, so parameters are mostly documented. The description adds that tags are the same as starRepo, providing some relational context, but it does not explicitly explain each parameter or add meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Unstar a repo' with a specific verb and resource, and adds implementation details (NIP-25 kind 7, content '-') that distinguish it from sibling tools like starRepo, listStars, and watchRepo.

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 implies usage when a user wants to remove a star, and the reference to 'Same tags as starRepo' provides context about parameter reuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, which would be clearer.

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