set_canvas_access

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

With no annotations at all, the description must disclose behavioral side effects itself. It only says 'set access rules' without explaining whether existing access rules are overwritten or merged, whether granting owner to one user removes other owners, or whether there are any destructive consequences. This leaves a mutation tool's most important behavior ambiguous.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and permission levels with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core operation.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, yet the description covers only the basic action. Important context is missing: whether the call adds or replaces access, any permission requirements, and how the optional user/group lists interact with the required access_level. For a permission-changing tool, this is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the access levels and user/group targets that are alreedy in the schema. It does not clarify why user_ids and group_ids are optional or what happens if neither is provided.

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') with a clear resource ('access rules for a canvas') and names the exact permission levels ('read/write/owner') and target types ('users or groups'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like delete_canvas_access and set_list_access.

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 such as delete_canvas_access for revoking access or edit_canvas for changing canvas content. It also fails to mention prerequisites, such as whether the canvas must already exist or whether caller needs owner permissions.

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