suggest_permissions_for_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful qualifier ('based on common mappings') suggesting non-exhaustive or opinionated results, but does not explain failure modes, determinism, or whether the tool is read-only. This is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and the key qualifier ('common mappings') without redundancy, making it extremely efficient.

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?

Despite the simple schema and output schema, the description omits critical context about parameter values and how the tool relates to other permission tools. The sibling list_permission_categories_and_tasks hints at a possible workflow, but the description doesn't mention it, leaving the agent under-informed for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 0%, and the description does not define what task_category or task_name should contain. The terms 'task' and 'category' are generic and give no concrete guidance on valid values or expected format. The agent is left to infer input requirements.

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 states the specific action (suggest permissions) for a targeted resource (Microsoft Graph) with a clear scope ('based on common mappings'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_permissions and get_all_graph_permissions by focusing on task-to-permission mapping.

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 implies usage (when you have a task and need permission suggestions) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. No mention of when to use this instead of list_permission_categories_and_tasks or search_permissions, leaving the decision to the agent.

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