Unstage selected Git paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the working tree remains unchanged, which is valuable and not fully captured by the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and clarifies the scope of the mutation.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description does not provide enough detail for correct invocation. It omits parameter semantics, expected input formats, and the role of the concurrency guard. The core purpose is clear, but the operational details are missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters (paths, projectId, expectedStatusSha256). It does not mention any of them, their format, or their purpose. The agent receives no guidance on what values to provide, especially for expectedStatusSha256, which is not self-evident.

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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'Git index', specifies 'explicit paths', and adds a crucial qualifier that working-tree contents are untouched. This distinguishes it from siblings like git_status, git_diff, and git_commit, which deal with other aspects of staging.

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 phrase 'Remove explicit paths from the Git index' provides clear context that this is for unstaging operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, though the context is sufficiently distinct given the sibling set.

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