file_permissions

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies platform-specific implementations (chmod for Unix, icacls for Windows), mentions recursive capability, and provides concrete examples. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent understand behavioral nuances.

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 extremely efficient: a clear purpose statement followed by two concrete examples that demonstrate key functionality. Every sentence earns its place by showing practical usage. The bilingual nature (Chinese purpose + examples) is appropriate for the context.

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's complexity (6 parameters, destructive operation, cross-platform), the description provides good context with platform specifics and examples. With annotations covering safety aspects (destructive, idempotent) and an output schema existing, the description focuses appropriately on practical usage. The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on platform detection or when to use permissions object versus mode.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description provides examples showing how parameters like path, mode, recursive, and max_depth work together, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The examples are helpful but don't fundamentally enhance parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as '跨平台文件权限管理' (cross-platform file permission management) with specific verbs for Unix (chmod) and Windows (icacls). It distinguishes from siblings like file_edit or file_operation by focusing specifically on permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible sibling tools in the list.

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 implies usage through platform-specific examples (Unix chmod, Windows icacls) and mentions recursive capability, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sudo_config or other file_* tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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