stars_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('remove a star') without discussing idempotency, side effects, permissions, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, short sentence (6 words) with no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, but could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without becoming wordy.

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 has 4 optional parameters and an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context for effective use. It does not explain the return format, when to provide which parameters, or how this tool fits into the broader star workflow (alongside 'stars_add' and 'stars_list'). The schema coverage is high, but the description still leaves gaps in usage understanding.

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 baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter info in the description. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 4 parameters. No improvement or degradation.

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 'Remove a star from an item.' uses a specific verb ('remove') and identifies the resource ('star'), making the action clear. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stars_add' and 'stars_list' by focusing on removal. However, it lacks explicit differentiation or context about what constitutes an 'item' (file, message, comment).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stars_add' or 'stars_list'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to know the star exists, or when not to use it. This forces the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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