edubase_post_event_permission

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which already indicate this is a mutation (create) operation without destruction. The description confirms this by stating 'Create new permission,' which matches the annotations. It does not add further behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as whether the operation is idempotent (idempotentHint=false is already in annotations), or what happens if the permission already exists. Since annotations already cover the basic behavioral profile, the description adds minimal value.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Create' and specifies the resource. While it is brief, it does not waste any space. A slightly more detailed sentence could be beneficial, but the conciseness is commendable.

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 has a medium complexity (3 required params, 1 enum), and both schema and output schema are provided, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but does not explain the return value (output schema exists), the effects of different permission levels (e.g., what 'admin' vs 'view' entails), or potential side effects (e.g., overriding existing permissions). With no output schema description required and good schema coverage, a score of 3 reflects a complete but bare-bones description.

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%, as all three parameters (user, event, permission) have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions are clear: 'user identification string', 'event identification string', and 'permission level' with an enum list. The description could have clarified the relationship between parameters (e.g., that the permission is granted to a user for a specific event), but this is already implied.

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 it creates a new permission for a user on an event, using specific verbs ('Create') and resource ('permission for a user on an event'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edubase_delete_event_permission and edubase_get_event_permission, but the description is brief and could be more specific about the scope of 'permission' (e.g., it could mention the permission levels available).

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It does not specify when to use it versus alternatives like edubase_post_event_transfer (which might transfer permissions) or the various get/delete permission tools. Since there are multiple permission-related tools (e.g., edubase_post_class_permission, edubase_post_exam_permission), the context is implied but not explicitly stated. No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are given.

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