unstar_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the removal behavior, the always-returned { starred: false } on 204, and the no-op idempotency when the repo was not starred. It also includes a documentation link, though it lacks details on auth requirements or error cases beyond the 204.

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 concise and action-first, using a few sentences to explain the purpose, behavior, response, and idempotency. Every sentence adds value, and the docs link is tucked at the end without bloat.

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?

For a simple, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it covers the exact return value, the no-op case, and the HTTP semantics. It does not need to explain return structure since it is explicitly stated, and the tool's complexity is low.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (owner and repo). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema fields already state, hence 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Unstar a repository that the authenticated user has previously starred.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like star_repo and check_repo_starred, leaving no ambiguity about the action.

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 states the tool is for repos the authenticated user has previously starred, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident from the phrasing and the sibling tool set.

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