bookstack_permissions_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps in safety and operational details for a tool that modifies access controls.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update permission settings') and purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from the action. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, side effects, or response format. For a mutation tool that controls access, this is inadequate—users need more context to use it safely and effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters and their properties. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between 'fallback_permissions' and 'permissions'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('permission settings for specific content') with the purpose of 'control user and role access.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_permissions_read' by specifying an update action rather than read. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., 'bookstack_books_update') beyond the permissions focus.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bookstack_permissions_read' for viewing permissions or other update tools for different content aspects. The description implies usage for access control but lacks contextual boundaries.

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