update_resource_permissions

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate. It adds context by stating it updates sharing settings and sets per-user roles or public visibility. It doesn't explicitly state that existing permissions are replaced, but 'set' implies it. Overall, good transparency.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence gives usage context, second explains action and scope, third adds requirements and exclusion. 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input requirements, action, and when not to use. It provides all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, but the description adds value by noting the condition that at least one of permissions or public must be provided, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the public option's effect (share with all users or make private). This goes beyond the schema.

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 updates sharing settings (per-user roles and/or public visibility) for specific resource types (alert, budget, report, allocation). It explicitly distinguishes from get_resource_permissions, ensuring no confusion with a read sibling.

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 specifies when to use: when changing sharing or access levels. It also explicitly says when not to use: for viewing permissions, directing to get_resource_permissions. It lists requirements (resourceType, resourceId, at least one of permissions or public).

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