Set permission

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the high-level action. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or consequences of granting/revoking permissions, nor does it address potential platform differences. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a list of examples. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action. No wasted text.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It lacks essential context such as the format for app_id, whether permissions are platform-specific, expected error behavior, or any prerequisite conditions. The aliases help but are not sufficient for complete understanding of the tool's usage and constraints.

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 only 25% (only device_id is described). The description compensates by listing common permission aliases (camera, microphone, location, etc.), which gives the agent a concrete idea of valid values for the 'permission' parameter. It also implies the role of the 'grant' boolean through 'grant or revoke,' though it could be more explicit about syntax.

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 tool's action: 'Grant or revoke a runtime permission for an app.' It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource (runtime permission), making the purpose unambiguous. It also lists example aliases (camera, microphone, etc.), which further clarifies the domain and distinguishes it from other 'set_*' sibling tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever a runtime permission needs to be granted or revoked) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of comparing to other permission-related tools, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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