set-object-acl

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Set', which implies mutation, but omits crucial details such as whether the ACL is completely replaced or merged, whether existing permissions are overwritten, and whether any special authorization is required to perform the operation.

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 states the action and resource without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested permissions parameter. The description is too minimal to be complete: it fails to mention whether the ACL replaces existing entries, how to remove permissions, or what the response/result will look like. The schema covers parameters but not the tool's operational behavior or side effects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: each parameter including the nested permissions structure has a description. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, but the schema already clearly documents className, objectId, and the ACL permissions shape. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and identifies the exact resource being acted upon: 'Access Control List (ACL) permissions' on an object. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-object or create-object, which operate on the object's general data rather than its ACL.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While it implies usage for setting object ACLs, it does not explain how this relates to update-object, role management tools, or when not to use it.

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