github_interactions_set_restrictions_for_authenticated_user

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

With no annotations, the description should explain behavior. It only says 'set' without detailing what the restrictions are, side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The input schema is vague, worsening the gap.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too brief to be fully useful.

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 tool performing a mutation on public repositories, the description lacks details about restrictions types, input requirements, and output. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient context to invoke correctly.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameter 'body' beyond what the schema provides. The schema's description is generic ('Request body (JSON object)'), and the description fails to clarify expected structure or values.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'interaction restrictions for your public repositories', matching the tool name and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get or remove restrictions for different scopes.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like set_restrictions_for_org or get/remove variants. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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