npm_access_set

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 'private' alias maps to 'restricted' on the wire, unscoped packages are always public, and restricted access requires a paid account. These complement the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds important context: purpose, alias mapping, scoping constraint, and account requirement. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: allowed values, alias behavior, limitations (unscoped packages), and prerequisites (paid account for restricted). It could mention authentication requirements or the impact on existing package visibility, but these are minor 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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds extra meaning: it clarifies the alias behavior of 'private' for the access parameter and explains that name's scoping affects the outcome (unscoped packages are always public). This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Set package access level' with specific allowed values ('public' or 'restricted'). It distinguishes from siblings like npm_package_access (likely for viewing) and npm_access_set_mfa by focusing on the access level setting action.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it works on scoped packages (unscoped are always public) and restricted access requires a paid account. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state 'when not to use' scenarios.

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