emacs_git_unstage

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

With no annotations, the description caries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not explain that unstaging affects only the index and leaves working-tree changes intact, nor does it mention whether the operation is destructive or reversible.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is slightly under-specified, but structurally it is efficient and reads directly as a callable operation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail, the description is not complete enough. An agent must infer the git-index semantics and return behavior from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation in edge cases.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single 'files' parameter, including a description that an empty array unstages all files. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 'Unstage file(s)' names a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling emacs_git_stage tool, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like emacs_git_stage, emacs_git_status, or emacs_git_commit. There is no mention of workflow context, prerequisites, or conditions that should trigger the unstage operation.

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