github_packages_restore_package_for_org

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Restore' implies a mutation, but it does not mention permissions, irreversibility, or what 'restore' means (e.g., from soft-deleted state). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with no waste. It is very concise, though it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral context without losing conciseness.

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, no annotations, and a simple one-sentence description, the context is incomplete. The agent lacks information on prerequisites, return values, and the exact effect of 'restore'. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'org' for org). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 an organization' clearly states the action (restore), resource (package), and scope (for an organization). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'restore_package_for_user' by specifying 'for an organization'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to restore a package vs. a package version, or when to use the authenticated user version). No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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