File Chown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does say this is a write operation and that sub=True recurses over children, but it omits whether ownership change requires admin/root, whether it is reversible, and what the side effects on descendants are.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, with the write nature and recursion clause following. No filler, nothing misplaced.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema covers most parameters. However, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the absence of permission requirements, session/profile context, and relation to file_acl_set leaves real gaps.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the otherwise undocumented 'sub' parameter ('sub=True 递归应用到子项'). It adds no meaning for host/port/scheme/profile beyond the schema text.

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 — '修改文件/目录属主' (modify file/directory owner) — which is unambiguous and clearly the chown operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the semantically adjacent sibling file_acl_set, which can also touch permissions/ownership.

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?

It flags '写操作' (write operation) and mentions the recursive sub=True case, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no alternative (e.g. file_acl_set) and no prerequisites such as authentication, session profile, or elevated privileges needed to change ownership.

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