parse_update_clp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it discloses the master key requirement and the special syntax values, which are important behavioral constraints. However, it does not state whether the call overwrites or merges existing permissions, what the response looks like, or whether the class must already exist.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every clause earns its place by defining scope, value syntax, and a prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core syntax and auth requirement but omits likely-needed context about overwrite behavior, return values, and error conditions. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the semantics of the only parameter's values ('*', 'requiresAuthentication', 'role:RoleName'), which is not obvious from the boolean schema. It adds meaning beyond the input schema, though it does not detail the nested permissions structure further.

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 opens with 'Define permisos a nivel de clase' and enumerates the specific permissions (get, find, create, update, delete, addField), making the tool's purpose concrete and distinct from sibling schema/class tools. The verb 'Define' plus the CLP resource clearly states what operation is performed.

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?

It clearly scopes the tool to class-level permissions and provides the accepted value formats ('*', 'requiresAuthentication', 'role:RoleName'), which tells the agent when this is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like parse_update_schema, so it stops short of a full usage-vs-alternatives explanation.

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