gitUnlinkRepo

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

The description only states 'Unlinks' without detailing effects, such as whether the local link is removed, what happens to uncommitted changes, or if the remote is affected. No annotations are provided to compensate, so the description should disclose more behavioral traits.

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 very short and front-loaded, meeting conciseness. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose, but it is not excessively terse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain the implications of unlinking a repository, such as whether it affects local or remote state, or if it is reversible. More context would be helpful for the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter repoId, which already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 'Unlinks a Git repository' uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, and gitRepos, which have different actions.

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. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be a linked repo) or comparison with gitRepos or gitPullRepo.

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