jfrog_update_permission_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It mentions 'update' but doesn't clarify if this is a partial or full update, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with security implications.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient. However, it's slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity, as it could benefit from more detail without losing conciseness.

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, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 67%, with parameters 'name' and 'resourceType' described but 'resource' lacking a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't worsen it either, meeting the 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?

The description states the action ('update') and target ('specific resource type within a permission target'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'update' entails or differentiate from siblings like 'jfrog_update_permission_target' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource', leaving ambiguity about scope.

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. Siblings include 'jfrog_update_permission_target' (likely broader updates) and 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource' (possibly full replacement), but the description offers no comparison or context for selection.

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