acc_set_folder_permissions

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

Beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint: false), the description adds meaningful behavior: automatic batch-create for new subjects and batch-update for subjects with existing permissions, plus the CONTROL permission requirement. This is valuable operational context an agent cannot infer from the annotation alone.

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 with a clear hierarchy: primary action, explanatory example, automatic behavior, and prerequisite. No filler or redundant content. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 description covers purpose, usage context, prerequisite, and automatic behavior, which is strong for a permission-setting tool. The output schema supplies return-value details, though the description could be slightly ambiguous about whether existing permissions for unlisted subjects are preserved or cleared. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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?

The schema already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds real-world examples that clarify the level parameter (e.g., 'upload' vs 'view_download') and shows how subjects_json should be structured via roles and companies. This elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Grant or change folder permissions for users, roles or companies'. It provides concrete ISO 19650 examples ('give the design team upload on WIP') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing it is the access-control step, unlike acc_get_folder_permissions or acc_remove_folder_permissions.

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?

The description establishes when to use the tool via the ISO 19650 CDE setup context and gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires CONTROL permission'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the wording implies this is for granting/changing rather than getting/removing, so context is clear though exclusions are not stated.

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