ecp_files_change_permission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is reversible, what errors might occur (e.g., file not found, invalid permission), whether it affects directories or symlinks, or what the response looks like. The 'chmod' verb implies mutation, but no impact details are disclosed.

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, short sentence with an inline example, which is efficient. The example is front-loaded. However, it omits critical details that could be added concisely, such as path resolution or format constraints, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and three required parameters with no enums, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the relationship between the three parameters, the expected permission format beyond a single example, or the operational context (e.g., whether the file is in a remote system). An agent would be uncertain about how to handle edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example 'new_permission: '644'' adds context for the permission format, which is helpful. However, 'current_directory' and 'file_name' are not explained beyond their names; the description does not clarify whether paths are absolute, if current_directory prefixes file_name, or how permissions should be formatted (e.g., leading zeros, symbolic).

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 clear verb ('chmod') and resource ('a file'), with an example of the format ('new_permission: '644''). It distinguishes itself from sibling file operations (e.g., write, delete, rename) by specifying it changes permissions specifically. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other permission-related operations, though none exist among siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the only tool for permissions, nor does it clarify scenarios like user/group ownership, recursive changes, or symbolic vs. octal modes. It only implies usage for changing permissions without any explicit context or exclusions.

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