coda_add_permission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'add a permission' without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, effect on existing permissions, or whether email notifications are sent (though 'suppressEmail' parameter exists). The short description leaves significant 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. However, it is perhaps too concise, omitting necessary details that would justify its length.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide a complete picture of the tool's behavior, including return value, side effects, and prerequisites. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 explain any parameters beyond their names. For example, 'principal' is an object with no description, and 'access' enum values are not elaborated. The description adds little value over 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 verb 'add' and the resource 'permission to a doc', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_permission' and 'list_permissions'. However, it could be more specific about what a permission entails, but it's sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_acl_settings' or 'delete_permission'). Prerequisites or conditions for adding a permission, such as required user roles, are not mentioned.

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