gitUnlinkRepo

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

No annotations exist, placing full burden on description. 'Unlinks' implies a destructive or state-changing operation, but no details are given about consequences (e.g., loss of local changes, permission requirements, reversibility).

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 short but lacks structure and substance. It is under-specified for a tool that likely has significant implications, making it not properly concise.

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's complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description fails to explain the unlink outcome, potential errors, or usage context. It is inadequate for an AI agent to confidently invoke.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (repoId, connection). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Unlinks') and the resource ('Git repository'), which directly maps to the tool name. It is specific, but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like stageRepo or gitPullRepo, which may have overlapping concepts.

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 such as stageRepo or gitExternalRepoInfo. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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