set_role_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and possible values, without mentioning prerequisites (e.g., role must exist), whether changes are immediate, side effects on existing sessions, or any return value. This is a material gap for a mutation tool.

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 lists the essential information without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose and the permission options.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of guidance. It omits behavioral side effects, prerequisites, and parameter meanings beyond the permission enum, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool in all its nuances.

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 only 33%, covering just modelPermission. The description adds the 'model-wide' qualifier but does not explain the role parameter (name vs. ID) or the required sessionId, leaving most parameters semantically underdocumented. It mostly duplicates the schema's enum description for modelPermission.

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 'Change' with a clear resource 'a role's model-wide permission' and enumerates the exact permission values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_rls (row-level security) and add_role/remove_role, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 conveys what the tool does and implies its usage context (changing model-wide role permissions), but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related tools like set_rls or add_role_member. The usage is implied rather than stated with alternatives or exclusions.

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