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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add useful context: project_key defaults to global tenant_id, type defaults to 3 for 'Data protection', and dependent_permissions defaults to []. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or whether duplicates are allowed, which are important 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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a concise Args block, and a Returns line. Every line conveys necessary information without fluff, making it appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description gives a solid parameter-level overview but lacks guidance on when to use the tool, error handling, or relationship to roles and permissions workflows. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the absence of usage context and mutation consequences leaves gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all 9 parameters with explanations, including default values and an example for tags. While some descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'name: Permission name'), the coverage of defaults and the tenant fallback adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Create a new permission', which is a specific verb+resource statement. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_permission', 'create_role', and 'list_permissions', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 parameter details and defaults, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_permission or list_permissions. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool should not be used. The usage intent is implied only by the tool name.

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