gist_star

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Star') but doesn't reveal if this is a mutation (likely yes), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the outcome is (e.g., success confirmation, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise at three words, front-loading the core action without any wasted text. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose in minimal space, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. Given the complexity of a write operation and the absence of structured data, more explanatory content is needed to adequately guide an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'gistId' clearly documented as 'The Gist ID to star'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Star a Gist' clearly states the action (star) and resource (Gist), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'gist_unstar' beyond the opposite action, nor does it specify what 'starring' entails (e.g., bookmarking, favoriting).

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 like 'gist_starred' (which likely lists starred gists) or 'gist_unstar'. The description implies usage for starring a specific Gist, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication, existing Gist) or exclusions (e.g., cannot star own Gist).

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