generate_permission_change_command

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly disclaims a serious hidden behavior: 'The MCP does not silently grant itself more permission,' which tells the agent this tool returns instructions rather than applying changes. It could add more detail about return presentation or prerequisites, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action and deliverable are front-loaded. The second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral caveat that earns its place.

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 two-parameter generator with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps: no guidance on how the caller should set target_permission_mode, no indication of whether both bash and PowerShell are always returned, and no explicit statement of the output format. It gives the agent enough to select the tool but not to fully anticipate its response.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only echoes the field names: 'profile' and 'permission mode.' It does not elaborate on target_permission_mode's enum values (read_only, fieldwork_write, admin_write, raw_api) or how the command uses them. The agent must rely on the raw schema field names and enums.

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 names a specific action ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('profile's permission mode'), and the deliverable (bash/PowerShell command). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling permission-related tools like describe_permission_modes or get_profile_permissions by emphasizing that it produces a command for the user rather than inspecting or recommending modes.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling alternatives are named. The phrase 'a user can run' implies the intended scenario—providing the user a self-service command—but exclusion or comparison with recommend_permission_mode is left to the agent to infer.

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