ds_modify_access_inheritance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'modify' but does not explain permission requirements, whether existing inherited access is recalculated, or the effect on already-existing child entries.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits permission needs, reversibility, and the recursive side effects that the 'recurse' parameter implies. Note also a mismatch — the description says 'file or directory' while the schema constrains 'path' to a directory (collection).

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 path, inherit, and recurse are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('data access inheritance flag') with clear scope ('file or directory'). It is understandable in isolation, but does not differentiate itself from the sibling ds_modify_access, which an agent must choose between.

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 indication of when to use this versus ds_modify_access, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'modify'.

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