edubase_post_organization_permission

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

The annotations show readOnlyHint=false (indicating mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description correctly states it 'Create' something, aligning with the mutation expectation. It does not contradict annotations. However, it fails to disclose behavioral details like whether existing permissions are overwritten, what happens to other permissions for the same user on the same organization, or if there are any cascading effects.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. It could be improved slightly by being more specific (e.g., what type of user identification), but it is concise and to the point.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity (simple create operation with 3 parameters). However, it lacks context about idempotency, whether duplicate permissions are handled, and the relationship to the many other permission tools in the sibling list. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps about behavioral semantics.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage guidance for the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify that 'user' might accept an email or ID, or that 'permission' levels have hierarchical implications). Following the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and specifies the resource ('permission for a user on an organization'). It clearly states the action and the two main entities involved. Among sibling tools, there are many other permission creation tools (e.g., edubase_post_class_permission), but the description makes the organization scope clear, which distinguishes it from those other permission tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_post_organization_members, edubase_get_organization_permission, or the many other permission-related tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the user must exist), limitations, or when not to use it. The description offers no usage context beyond restating the basic action.

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