rba_set_script_capsule_permissions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the operation replaces explicit capability grants and that the next capsule run is blocked if static source requirements are not granted, which is a critical side effect. This goes beyond what the name alone implies, though it doesn't cover all potential behaviors like error handling or reversibility.

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-loaded with the primary action, and includes a crucial consequence without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description provides adequate context: it names the resource, the action, and a critical implication for capsule execution. It could be improved by mentioning whether the capsule must exist or what the return value is, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 must compensate. The phrase 'script capsule's explicit capability grants' helps interpret the 'permissions' parameter as the new grants, and 'Replace' implies the array entirely overwrites existing grants. However, the description does not explicitly define what each enum value means or clarify the format of the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema shows.

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 action: 'Replace a script capsule's explicit capability grants.' It uses a specific verb (Replace) and resource (script capsule's explicit capability grants), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_script_capsule or run_script_capsule. The additional note about blocking the next run adds context that clarifies the intended purpose.

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 that this tool is used when you need to update or replace the permission grants of a script capsule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to select it over related capsule tools. The behavior of blocking the next run when static requirements are unmet provides context for when this operation is needed.

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