chcon

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining 'may alter file security labels, affecting access control' and how to avoid changes with --dry_run. It also notes safe failure without --allow_context, adding valuable context.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, destructiveness, usage tips, and differentiation. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, safety, required flags, and related tools. Lacks details on output/return value, but given the tool's nature and no output schema, it is adequately complete for selecting and invoking.

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 for 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions --dry_run and --allow_context but doesn't add significant detail beyond the schema for other parameters.

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 'Plan or apply an SELinux security context to files,' specifies the resource (SELinux context) and action (plan/apply), and distinguishes from siblings by noting 'Not for general permission changes — use chmod' and referencing 'runcon'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (manage SELinux contexts), when not (permission changes), and provides alternatives (chmod, runcon). Also advises using --dry_run to preview and notes that --allow_context is required for actual execution.

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