Manager Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those flags by specifying exactly what the read-only result contains and that it reflects the connection's current authorization state.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the output details are compactly listed, and the usage hint earns its place. Every sentence adds 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?

Given an output schema, one optional parameter, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It states what the tool returns, the context in which it should be used, and the business scoping.

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 must compensate. It only hints that the business parameter scopes results ('for a business') but does not explain the business identifier format, the meaning of null, or the default behavior. For a single optional parameter this is acceptable but not fully compensating.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the resource (permissions of the current connection for a business), then enumerates the concrete outputs: totals per operation, rule origins, and resources with write access. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like manager_list or open_permissions_panel.

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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use it before telling the user something is not possible.' This is a clear, actionable trigger for when to call the tool. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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