workiva_file_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions requirements, or reversibility. It only says 'modify to change them' without explaining consequences of modification, conflicts between assign/revoke, or auth needs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation name.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured as an Args list. It includes necessary parameter explanations and examples without excessive verbosity, though the format could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool involves dual operations and four parameters, and the description covers parameter semantics well. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, and does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., overlapping assign/revoke). The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all four parameters, including the meaning of the operation enum and provides concrete JSON examples for to_assign and to_revoke. This adds significant value over the raw schema, though it could clarify conditions like whether to_assign is ignored when operation='get'.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: "Get or modify file permissions." This distinguishes it from sibling file management tools like workiva_get_file or workiva_update_file, which handle file content rather than permissions.

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 through the operation parameter ('get' to list, 'modify' to change), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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