security-set-item-acl

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value by spelling out exactly what each mode destroys ('replace' discards every existing rule, 'clear' removes all rules and adds nothing). It doesn't mention required permissions or the response shape, but the destructive semantics are made concrete beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the destructive action semantics are front-loaded and the sibling routing is placed at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, mode semantics, and related-tool routing adequately. Missing only peripheral details like auth requirements or return behavior, which are minor given the annotations.

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 100% and each parameter (including the action enum, identity, accessRight, propagationType, securityPermission) is documented in the schema itself. The description restates the action semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Changes the access rules on a Sitecore item') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling read tools by naming security-get-item-acl and security-test-item-acl. An agent can tell what this tool does and where it sits in the security family without opening any schema.

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 add/replace/clear explanation effectively tells the agent which mode to pick, and it explicitly routes to security-get-item-acl for reading current rules and security-test-item-acl for checking effective rights. It stops short of stating when NOT to use the tool or any prerequisite permissions, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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