unpublish_from_github

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the mechanism (runs workflow with delete: true), the prerequisite (workflow_dispatch trigger), the failure behavior ('the result says so'), the permanence of delete_repo, the required scope, and the need for user confirmation. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then explains mechanics and cautions. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, operation, prerequisites, side effects, and required permissions. It does not specify what the repo parameter should look like or describe the success/error return format, but the phrase 'the result says so' hints at error messaging. Overall it is near-complete for an agent to act correctly.

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 50% (delete_repo has a schema description, repo does not). The description adds value by explaining delete_repo's scope requirement and permanence, but it does not clarify the expected format for the repo parameter (e.g., 'owner/repo'), leaving that gap. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool's action: 'Take down the mocks a repository serves, freeing its simulation slot.' It uses a specific verb ('take down') and identifies the resource (repository), and this is the inverse of the sibling publish_to_github, making it distinguishable.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to unpublish mocks) and explicitly states when it cannot work (if the repo's workflow lacks workflow_dispatch). It also instructs to confirm with the user before using delete_repo: true. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly compare with publish_to_github, so it stops short of a 5.

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