(Admin) Create a new usermanagement permission, e.g. name='dataset.export', resource='dataset', action='export'. Attach it to roles via the usermanagement role-permissions API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| resource | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is an admin-only operation and gives an example format. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or whether existing permissions are overwritten. This is a simple create, but transparency is limited.
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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence leads with the action and resource, and the second provides a concrete example and a useful note about role attachment. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description provides the essential context: admin requirement, naming convention through an example, and relationship to role assignment. It adequately equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details like validation or duplicate behavior, which are less critical for a basic create operation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example thoroughly explains the three required parameters (name, resource, action) by showing a concrete instance. However, the optional 'description' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unexplained. This partial compensation justifies a mid-range score.
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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new usermanagement permission' with a specific verb and resource. The example (name='dataset.export', resource='dataset', action='export') further clarifies the exact nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_role or grant_role_capability by focusing on permission objects.
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 gives a clear context of use: it is an admin action, and it explicitly notes that attaching the permission to roles is done via a separate 'role-permissions API'. This implies the tool is only for creation, providing workflow context and setting boundaries without naming alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as user management (activate, ban, assign role) vs. space management (create, add member, set visibility) vs. ingest/jobs (ingest_files, job_status, recover). A few pairs like grant_capability vs. grant_role_capability are similar but descriptions clarify the target, so an agent should be able to choose correctly.
All tools are prefixed with brainkb_ and the large majority follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_space_member, list_tokens, revoke_token). Some exceptions like brainkb_delta, brainkb_search, brainkb_whoami, and brainkb_capabilities break the pattern, but these are few and still readable.
With 49 tools, the server is far above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad scope (user admin, spaces, graphs, ingest, provenance, auth) justifies many operations, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially unwieldy for an agent to navigate.
The tool set covers a wide range of use cases: user/role/capability management, space administration, graph registration, ingest, job monitoring, provenance, search, and SPARQL. However, there are notable gaps such as removing a space member, deleting a space, or updating space metadata, which could leave agents without a way to fully manage the lifecycle of a space.