gist_unstar

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 ('Unstar') but doesn't explain what happens (e.g., removes from user's starred list, requires authentication, potential side effects, or response format). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Unstar a Gist') with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (unstarring implies a state change) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'unstar' entails, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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%, with the single parameter 'gistId' documented as 'The Gist ID to unstar'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Unstar a Gist' clearly states the action (unstar) and target resource (a Gist), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'unstar' means operationally (e.g., removing from starred list) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gist_star' or 'gist_starred', making it somewhat vague.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the Gist must be starred first), exclusions, or relationships with siblings like 'gist_star' (for starring) or 'gist_starred' (for listing starred Gists), leaving usage context unclear.

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