fm_chmod

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Change permissions' names the operation but does not disclose whether changes are recursive, whether they could lock out access, or what the confirm parameter actually controls. The claim that confirm is 'Required' also conflicts with the input schema, which lists only payload as required and gives confirm a default of false.

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 very short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes either the operation or argument context. The under-specification is counted in other dimensions, but as structure and conciseness, it is efficient.

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 mutation tool with a nested payload object, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It omits critical details about the payload structure, mode syntax, whether recursion is supported, and how confirm affects execution. An agent would likely need to guess or look elsewhere to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only provides minimal labels: 'payload: Paths + mode' and 'confirm: Required.' It does not explain the expected structure of paths, the mode format (octal vs symbolic), or the meaning of confirm. The statement 'confirm: Required' is actually misleading because the schema marks it optional with a default.

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: 'Change permissions.' In the context of sibling file-management tools like fm_mkdir, fm_remove, and fm_move, this clearly identifies the intended operation. However, it does not mention whether it applies to files, directories, or both, 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is 'when you need to change permissions,' but the description does not provide explicit decision guidance.

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