ftrack_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'check', which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state it. No disclosure of return format, whether it checks the current user's permissions, or any security requirements. This is minimal transparency.

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 that earns its place. It is concise and to the point without unnecessary filler.

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 a simple but multi-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of allowed actions), how to interpret results, or detail that it operates on the current user. The agent lacks enough context for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does tie entity_type/entity_id together via 'for an entity', but gives no extra details about valid actions or entity types.

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 'Check permissions for an entity' uses a clear verb ('check') and resource ('permissions'), but lacks specificity about whose permissions are checked or the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling permission management tools, though 'check' contrasts with create/update/revoke operations.

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. There is no mention of use cases like verifying access before an operation or prerequisite conditions. The agent is left to infer from the name and schema.

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