github_packages_restore_package_version_for_user

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits: no mention of authentication needs, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing versions), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is completely opaque about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 states the core function concisely. It is not verbose, but it lacks necessary details that would justify its brevity. It earns its place as a minimal statement, but does not provide structured information (e.g., separating overview from 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 tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the process of restoring a package version, potential errors, or return values. The user is left with no context beyond the operation name.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), but those descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'username' described as 'username'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high, but the description does not enhance understanding of parameter purpose or constraints.

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 (restore) and resource (package version) for a user. It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'restore_package_version_for_authenticated_user' or 'restore_package_version_for_org'. However, the verb and object are explicit.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, package must be previously deleted), and no mention of when not to use it. The description solely states the operation without any situational advice.

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