Request file-system permission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses that this is an interactive user-consent prompt, that the permission is narrowly scoped, and that existing read/write tools bypass it entirely. It stops short of saying what happens if the user declines or whether the call blocks.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The parenthetical listing dependent tools is placed immediately after the core action, and the scope note comes last, which is the correct front-loading order.

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 one-param, zero-required permission request with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: trigger, dependents, and scope limitation. It omits the outcome of a denial or what the call returns, which is the one remaining ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 coverage is already 100% for the single optional scope param. The description adds a genuine nuance beyond 'Optional directory to limit access to': that scope restricts the permission to exactly one directory, clarifying the bounded effect on all five dependent tools.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Ask the user for the plugin file-system permission.' It goes further by scoping exactly which sibling tools require it (bb_list_dir, bb_glob, bb_file_info, bb_mkdir, bb_delete_path) and which do not, so the agent can place it precisely among ~60 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?

States both when to use it ('needed only by' the five named tools) and when not to ('reads and writes work without it'), naming the alternative path explicitly. No inference required from the agent.

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