chown_path

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates filesystem metadata via chown and reports error conditions. It could be more detailed about side effects (e.g., symlink behavior) but overall it provides adequate transparency for a mutation operation.

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?

Description is concise: two sentences plus a bullet-like note. Front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information.

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?

Tool has low complexity (3 params), and output schema exists (not shown). Description covers prerequisites and error conditions. It is complete enough for a simple 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 has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying that path must exist and be under allowed_write_dirs, and owner and group must be existing local names, which is not in the 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?

Description clearly states the tool changes owner and group of a path, using specific verb 'wijzig' and resource 'eigenaar en groep van een bestaand toegestaan pad'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chmod_file which deals with permissions, not ownership.

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?

Description specifies prerequisites: path must exist and be under allowed_write_dirs, owner and group must be existing local names. It also mentions error conditions for unknown users or missing permissions. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives.

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