unstage_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Unstages change' without indicating whether the operation is reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary substance. It under-specifies the tool's behavior and context, making it insufficient for an agent to understand its usage.

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 simple signature (one parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description should cover at least the outcome and prerequisites. It only states the action, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role in the staging workflow.

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 one required parameter 'id' with description 'Path parameter: id', covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states 'Unstages change of the related profile', which indicates the tool reverses a staging action on a profile. However, the phrase 'change of the related profile' is vague and does not explicitly define what 'staging' means. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_profile', it lacks precision.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when staging applies, or when unstaging is appropriate. Sibling tools like 'commit_profile' imply context, but the description fails to clarify.

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