manage_server_group_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only lists the possible actions without explaining side effects (e.g., whether changes are immediate, require permissions, or affect other settings). The schema includes flags like skip and negate, but their behavioral implications are not described.

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 quickly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to mention optional parameters without becoming verbose.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values for the list action, nor does it cover the behavior of optional parameters. A more complete description would include usage context and expected outcomes.

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?

Since the input schema has 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the purpose of skip, negate, or value in any detail.

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 ('manage') and clearly identifies the resource (server group permissions). It lists the three actions (add, remove, list), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_channel_permissions or manage_user_permissions.

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 that the tool is for modifying server group permissions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., diagnose_permissions or list_server_groups). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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