update_app_acl

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. While '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens when ACLs are modified. For a permission-modifying tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 Japanese sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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-modifying tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are required to use it, whether changes are reversible, or how ACL updates affect existing users. Given the complexity of ACL management and the complete lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('kintoneアプリのアクセス権限' - kintone app access permissions), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_field_acl' or 'update_record_acl', but the focus on app-level permissions is clear from the description itself.

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. There are multiple ACL-related tools in the sibling list (get_app_acl, evaluate_records_acl, get_field_acl, update_field_acl, get_record_acl), but the description doesn't help the agent understand when app-level ACL updates are appropriate versus field or record-level updates.

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