security-add-item-acl-by-id

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 tool 'adds' an ACL entry, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., propagation to descendants), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a security-related mutation tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a security mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed, idempotency), usage context compared to siblings, and expected outcomes or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate 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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid ID formats or identity strings. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage via the schema alone.

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 ('Adds') and resource ('access control entry to a Sitecore item by its ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'security-add-item-acl-by-path' by specifying 'by its ID', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ACL-related tools like 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' or 'security-clear-item-acl-by-id'.

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 sibling tools like 'security-add-item-acl-by-path' (which uses a path instead of ID) or 'security-set-item-acl-by-id' (which might replace rather than add ACL entries), nor does it specify prerequisites, such as required permissions or database context.

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