client_perm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never discloses that some actions mutate state (add_group, remove_group, add_perm, remove_perm) while others are read-only (list_groups, list_perms), nor any permission/authorization prerequisites or reversibility of changes.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. It does not front-load which actions are available or what the caller must supply, leaving the schema to carry the entire operational picture.

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 multiplexed tool with seven parameters, six enum actions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains neither the action dispatch semantics nor what each read action returns, which an agent needs to invoke the right action correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including their action-specific applicability. The description adds no syntax, format, or conditional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Manage' is a catch-all, but the resource is specific: a client's server group membership and individual permissions. It does not distinguish this tool from similarly-named siblings such as sgroup_perm, channel_perm, or cgroup_perm, and it never mentions the six distinct actions the tool actually performs. Adequate but vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like perm_overview, sgroup_perm, or perm_list. The description states a topic but not a usage context or any exclusion criteria that would help an agent choose among the many permission-related siblings.

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