set_document_protection

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists possible edit values but does not explain whether the action is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or what happens to existing protection. The output schema exists but is not shown, so return behavior is unclear.

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 concise, using a single sentence plus a list. It front-loads the purpose immediately. The format 'edit: ...' is efficient but slightly cryptic. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the complexity of document protection (with modes, passwords, and handles), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effects of each protection mode, how password interacts, or the role of document_handle. The absence of output schema details further reduces completeness.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'edit' parameter by listing possible values (trackedChanges/comments/readOnly/forms/none), which is not present in the input schema (0% coverage). However, it does not explain the 'password' or 'document_handle' parameters, which are also undocumented in the schema. Thus, partial compensation.

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 'Set document protection', which specifies the action (set) and resource (document protection). This distinguishes it from other set_* sibling tools like set_document_language or set_track_changes. However, it could be more explicit about what protection entails and the meaning of the listed edit values.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_track_changes or other editing restriction tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other tools.

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