edubase_post_scorm_permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Create new permission'—it does not disclose whether the call fails if the permission already exists, what authorization is needed, or how the system behaves under conflicts. Given that annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description contributes little 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, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. Every word earns its place, providing the essential action, resource, and context with zero fluff. This is ideal conciseness.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, an enum, and an output schema (not shown but noted). For a simple creation operation, the description is arguably sufficient to convey the core action. However, it lacks preconditions (e.g., user/SCORM existence) and any mention of idempotency or side effects. With the output schema present, the missing return-value explanation is acceptable, but the overall guidance for the agent is adequate but not thorough.

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%; each parameter (user, scorm, permission) already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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'), identifies the resource ('permission'), the target entity ('SCORM learning material'), and the actor ('user'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like edubase_get_scorm_permission (read) and edubase_delete_scorm_permission (delete), as well as permission tools for other entities (e.g., edubase_post_class_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user or SCORM material must exist), nor any indication of when not to use it. While the name and resource imply context, the description lacks the 'when-not-to-use' and 'alternative' clarity expected for a 4+ score.

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