update_user_permission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates or adds permissions, implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required authorization levels, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid user), or side effects. The mention of 'Returns: Updated permission info' hints at output but lacks detail. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and efficient: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with parameter details, but overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error handling), usage guidelines, and detailed return information. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by listing all three parameters with brief explanations: 'repo_slug: Repository slug', 'selected_user: User's account_id or UUID', and 'permission: Permission level - "read", "write", or "admin"'. This adds meaningful semantics, especially for 'permission' with its enum values. However, it doesn't fully cover format specifics (e.g., UUID format for selected_user) or constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update or add a user's permission for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('Update or add'), resource ('user's permission'), and target ('repository'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_group_permission' or 'delete_user_permission' beyond the obvious scope difference.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin access), when not to use it (e.g., for group permissions), or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_group_permission' or 'delete_user_permission'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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