chmod_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool mutates filesystem metadata via chmod but does not change file content. This is helpful, but it does not disclose required permissions or potential side effects like loss of access.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the primary purpose, and the second provides usage constraints. Information is front-loaded and easily digestible.

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 simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: input requirements (path, mode format, constraints), and behavioral impact (metadata change, no content change). An output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable for a mutation 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 0%, meaning parameters have no description. The description compensates excellently by explaining that path must exist and be under allowed directories, and that mode must be a three or four digit octal string with examples. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 changes Unix permission mode of an existing allowed path. It uses a specific verb (wijzig/modify) and resource (permissiemodus/file permissions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like chown_path which change owner.

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 provides clear constraints: path must exist and be under allowed_write_dirs, mode must be octal string (e.g., 755). It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct to alternatives like chown_path for ownership changes.

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