ramzinex_edit_private_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the tool is a mutation (changes permissions), requires specific instance configuration, and returns a specific error without contacting the API if conditions are unmet. It also maps to an HTTP endpoint.

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 well-organized with a warning, Persian purpose, prerequisites, HTTP mapping, and parameter list. It is slightly verbose (e.g., repeating the endpoint details) but each section adds value and there is no fluff.

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 complexity (8 parameters, security implications, output schema exists), the description covers prerequisites, parameter explanations, and behavior. The output schema handles return values, so the description is complete for safe invocation.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'withdraw: 0 or 1 — allow withdrawals'). It also clarifies the relationship between ip_free and ips. All 8 parameters are covered with clear semantics.

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 per-key API access permissions, with a specific verb ('edit private access') and resource ('API key'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'ramzinex_edit_general_access' by focusing on private access.

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 explicitly states prerequisites (configured credentials, account_control=true, read_only=false) and the error response when conditions are not met. It does not directly compare to alternatives, but the sibling tool names ('edit_general_access' vs 'edit_private_access') provide context.

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