edubase_post_integration_permission

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as behavior on duplicate permissions, idempotency, or side effects. It is adequate but adds no extra transparency.

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 clear sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward creation tool, though it could slightly expand on usage without losing brevity.

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 simple creation action, presence of an output schema (not shown), and full schema parameter coverage, the description is complete enough. It provides the essential purpose and required entities, leaving no critical gaps for a basic permission assignment tool.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds no additional semantic value. It does not explain the enum values for 'permission' or provide context on valid inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create new permission'), the resource ('integration'), and the recipient ('user'). It directly communicates the tool's purpose without ambiguity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like edubase_delete_integration_permission and edubase_get_integration_permission.

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 for granting permissions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it relates to other permission tools (e.g., delete or get). Usage is inferred from the tool name and context.

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