gitUnlinkRepo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (likely, given 'unlinks'), requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens post-unlink (e.g., error handling, confirmation). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a likely destructive operation. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe tool invocation. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in context.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'repoId' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.

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 states the action ('Unlinks') and resource ('a Git repository'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'unlinks' means operationally (e.g., disconnects, removes association) or differentiate from siblings like 'gitRepos' (list) or 'gitCreateRepo' (create), leaving ambiguity about its exact function.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'gitRepos' for listing or 'gitCreateRepo' for creation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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