set_permission_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does (changes permission modes) and provides caution about 'allow_all', but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires admin privileges, if changes are immediately effective, what happens to pending commands during mode transition, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific mode explanations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about the three modes and their implications. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain behavioral implications, error conditions, and system impact. While it adequately explains what the tool does and what the modes mean, it lacks information about permissions required, immediate vs delayed effects, and what the tool returns. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but insufficient for safe, informed use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what each mode value means ('allowlist' = only allow listed commands, 'ask' = prompt for unlisted commands, 'allow_all' = allow all commands), which provides semantic understanding beyond the schema's enum listing. However, it doesn't mention the 'persist' parameter at all, leaving that detail solely to the schema.

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 specific action ('Change the permission mode') and resource ('permission mode'), with explicit enumeration of the three possible modes. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_permission_status' (which reads rather than changes) and 'approve_command' (which handles individual commands rather than system-wide modes).

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 about when to use each mode ('allowlist' for only listed commands, 'ask' for prompting, 'allow_all' for allowing all commands), including a caution for 'allow_all'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'approve_command' for individual command approvals or 'get_permission_status' for checking current mode.

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