AI FileSystem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('change') but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, if it requires elevated permissions, or any side effects (e.g., breaking existing access). For a mutation tool with security implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented in the schema, and the information is front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a permission-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, error conditions, or what constitutes success. Given the complexity of permission changes and potential for system disruption, more context about behavioral expectations and constraints would be valuable for safe agent operation.

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%, providing complete documentation of all three parameters (path, permissions format, recursive flag). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain permission formats further or provide examples beyond what the schema's pattern and description already cover. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('change') and resource ('file or directory permissions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'update_file' or 'modify_code' by focusing specifically on permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible permission-related tools that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing appropriate access rights), when not to use it (e.g., for system files), or how it relates to siblings like 'update_file' or 'security_audit'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameters.

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