Set Permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies a mutation, but the description does not explain permissions required, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to an existing permission.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a concise tool definition, though its brevity contributes to gaps addressed in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented required parameter, this description is incomplete. An agent can infer the basic operation but lacks guidance on permissions, side effects, and server-state prerequisites.

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 67%, so the schema already documents xuid and permission, and server_name is undocumented. The description adds only 'by XUID', which repeats schema information without explaining server_name or the meaning of the permission enum values.

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 states a specific verb (Set) and resource (a player's permission level), and it identifies the key parameter (by XUID). It does not differentiate from siblings like get_permissions or add_to_allowlist, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_permissions or add_to_allowlist. The description also omits prerequisites like whether the server must be running or whether the caller needs operator rights.

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