create_acl

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

Annotations already indicate write operations (readOnlyHint=false), and description aligns by stating 'Create'. However, beyond the prerequisite, the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., whether creation can block access), return value, or potential conflicts. It does not contradict annotations.

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 wastes no words. It conveys the primary purpose and a critical prerequisite in a compact format.

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 ACL creation (8 parameters including roles, script, admin_overrides), the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of return value (since no output schema exists) and typical usage patterns. It covers the basic purpose but leaves agents to rely heavily on the schema and implicit knowledge.

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 100% (all 8 parameters documented). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions 'ACL rule to control access to a table or field', which is a high-level summary. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new ACL rule to control access to a table or field', which specifies the verb (create) and resource (ACL rule). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_acl' and 'list_acls' by focusing on creation. The prerequisite 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true' adds specificity.

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), providing important context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context with siblings like 'get_acl' and 'update_acl' implies usage scenarios, but direct guidance is missing.

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