akb_set_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies mutation (setting access level) but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing user permissions are overridden, if the operation is reversible, or any authorization requirements beyond owner). This is adequate but not detailed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that cover purpose, usage constraint, and parameter meanings. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks information about the return value or success/failure indication, and whether the operation is destructive or reversible. This is a minor gap for a set operation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the enum values ('none'=private, 'reader'=public read, 'writer'=public read+write). This enhances the schema's definition of the 'level' parameter. The 'vault' parameter is straightforward, and the description doesn't need to add more.

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 'Set vault public access level' with a verb and resource, and explains the enum values (none, reader, writer) which differentiates it from sibling tools like akb_grant (which handles user-specific permissions). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from all sibling tools that might set vault access restrictions.

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 includes 'Owner only', providing a clear usage constraint. It implies when to use this tool (to change public access) but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The enum values give direct guidance on valid inputs.

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