File Acl Set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only discloses that this is a write operation that may affect sub-items. It does not describe permissions required, session/profile implications, reversibility, or what happens to existing ACLs. This is minimal disclosure for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key verb and resource come first, followed by the behavioral caveat. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it chooses to convey.

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?

The tool has an output schema and complete parameter schema coverage, so return values and parameter details need not be repeated here. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves behavioral and usage context (auth, session/profile, batch consequences) thin. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 设置文件 ACL 权限 (set file ACL permissions). It also distinguishes the operation as a write action that may affect sub-items. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as file_acl_get or file_chown, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or the sibling ACL tools such as file_acl_get or file_trimacl_report. The write/batch note is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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