github_interactions_remove_restrictions_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the action and scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like safety (it removes restrictions), reversibility, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the key action and scope.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete. It does not explain what interaction restrictions are, any side effects, or prerequisite conditions. It covers the basic action and scope but lacks depth.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the schema covers 100% of parameters (none). No additional parameter information is necessary.

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 explicitly states the action (Remove), the resource (interaction restrictions), and the scope (from your public repositories). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_interactions_get_restrictions_for_authenticated_user and github_interactions_set_restrictions_for_authenticated_user, as well as org/repo variants.

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, it does not mention that this should be used after setting restrictions to clear them, or that it only affects the authenticated user's public repositories. The description lacks context about typical use cases.

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