github_repos_add_app_access_restrictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, mutability effects, or side effects on branch protection. The description is too minimal to inform safe usage.

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 sentence and technically concise, but it lacks crucial context. Conciseness does not compensate for under-specification.

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 complexity (4 parameters, nested body object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the body's structure, expected restrictions, or success/error responses.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for owner, repo, branch, and body. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 'Add app access restrictions' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'set_app_access_restrictions' or 'remove_app_access_restrictions'. It barely adds meaning beyond the tool name, lacking context about the specific type of app or restrictions.

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., set, remove, team/user restrictions). There is no context about prerequisites, such as required permissions or branch protection status.

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