unstar_repository

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating action (removing a star) but does not mention permissions, idempotency, or the effect on the repository, which is a significant gap for a write operation.

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, short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity results in a lack of useful substance, making it only minimally acceptable.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter information, the description is insufficient. It only states the action and omits prerequisites, return behavior, and repository identification details.

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?

Both parameters (owner, repo) lack descriptions in the schema, and the description adds no explanation of these fields. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameters underspecified.

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 uses the clear verb 'Unstar' with resource 'repository', directly stating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling 'star_repository' by its opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention that relationship.

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 star_repository. The intended use is implied by the verb, but there are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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