create_acl

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 mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED) but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a critical prerequisite. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 8 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a prerequisite but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or output format, leaving gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new ACL rule') with specific scope ('to control access to a table or field'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_acl' and 'update_acl' by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ACL-related tools like 'list_acls'.

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 a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'update_acl' or 'list_acls', nor does it mention any exclusions or complementary tools.

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