github_packages_delete_package_for_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (delete) but does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversibility, associated data removal, or side effects). For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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 (7 words) but lacks necessary details. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness. Structure is absent; one sentence does not provide enough value.

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 complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error scenarios, and behavioral context. The agent cannot properly understand what to expect or how to handle failures.

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 descriptions are trivial (just parameter names), providing no additional meaning. The tool description does not explain what values are valid for 'package_type' or how 'package_name' should be formatted. Despite 100% schema coverage, the lack of useful descriptions reduces the score.

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 action (delete) and the resource (package) with scope (for an organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_package_for_authenticated_user' and 'delete_package_for_user' by specifying organization scope. However, it lacks details about package types or additional context, so not a perfect 5.

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, prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or when not to use it. The description does not help an agent decide between this and similar package deletion tools for user or version scopes.

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