github_packages_restore_package_for_authenticated_user

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

The description lacks behavioral details. It does not specify side effects (e.g., whether the package becomes visible again), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Without annotations, the description should compensate but does not.

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, which is efficient but severely lacking in content. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide necessary details.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the restore operation's effects, required conditions, or return value, leaving the AI agent with minimal context.

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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema are tautological (e.g., 'package_type' for package_type). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining valid package types (e.g., npm, container) or the role of the optional token parameter.

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 'Restore a package for the authenticated user' merely restates the tool name. It does not clarify what 'restore' means (e.g., undelete a previously deleted package) or distinguish it from similar tools like restore_package_for_org or restore_package_for_user.

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 (e.g., restoring for org or user). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the package to have been previously deleted or requiring specific permissions.

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