Change file permissions

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

Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It doesn't state whether permissions are applied recursively, whether sudo is required, or whether existing permissions are overwritten. Since annotations cover some safety signals, the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence merely restates the first. While not verbose, the redundancy wastes a sentence that could have been used to explain parameters or usage. It is concise but not efficiently informative.

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 mutating tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that a valid sessionId is likely required, what permission formats are accepted, or what success/error responses look like. The description provides only the bare function, leaving crucial operational details undocumented.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter meaning. It doesn't clarify the expected format for 'permissions' (e.g., octal vs symbolic), the role of 'sessionId', or the nature of 'path'. With zero parameter documentation, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 clearly states the tool changes file permissions on a remote host. It uses a specific verb ('change') and resource ('file permissions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, write, or copy files. The second sentence is largely redundant but not misleading.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, but there are no sibling tools that perform the same operation. The purpose is implied, yet there is no mention of prerequisites like an active SSH session or path format, so the usage context is only vaguely implied.

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