modify_document_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that access_level can be null to remove access, and states the return type, but does not address permissions, idempotency, or error cases, leaving some gaps.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, args, returns) and is front-loaded. It is not overly verbose, but a slight reduction in line breaks could improve 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?

Given no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers all aspects: purpose, prerequisites, complete parameter descriptions with valid values, and return type. It provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by describing each parameter and enumerating valid values for access_level (owners, editors, viewers, null to remove), adding critical meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Modifies a user's access to a document') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'modify_document' or 'modify_workspace_access' by specifying the resource (document access) and target (user).

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 explicitly lists prerequisites (list_documents, list_document_access), guiding the agent on when to use this tool after gathering necessary IDs. It does not specify when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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