set_file_security

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mutating action and the effect of the flags, but does not state whether changes are reversible, whether a password is required for restrictions to take effect, or what scope the security applies to.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a minimal arg list. Every line contributes necessary information without fluff or repetition.

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?

The action and all parameters are covered, and an output schema exists to handle return-value documentation. However, with no annotations and no guidance on when to use this tool relative to security-related siblings, some operational context remains missing.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting all four parameters: doc_id, password, no_copy, and no_print. It adds useful context such as 'Document ID from open_document' and clarifies that 1 disables copy/print, though it leaves null/0 semantics implicit.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('file security'), with a clarifying detail 'restrict copy/print.' It is unambiguous about the intended operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from security-related siblings like set_password or set_drm_authority.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives are provided. The phrase 'restrict copy/print' restates the tool's purpose rather than explaining when this tool should be chosen over related security or DRM tools.

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