can_edit

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false annotations by saying 'Check' with no implied side effects. It adds little beyond the annotations, but there is no contradiction.

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 short and mostly to the point, but the parameter documentation is incomplete and out of order relative to the schema. The missing target_id makes it feel less structured than it should be.

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 description is too sparse to be complete. It does not clarify the relationship between target_id, target_type, and workspace_id, and it leaves the core target_id parameter undefined. Return-value details are not required because an output schema exists, but the input ambiguity is significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id and target_type with useful context, but it completely omits target_id, which is a required parameter and central to the operation. The parameter listing is also unordered relative to the schema.

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 ('Check whether the current user has edit access') and the resource is a generic 'target'. This distinguishes it from sibling read/archive/permission tools, though 'target' is somewhat vague and the specific target_id parameter is not described.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling permission-checking tools like can_read, can_manage_permissions, or can_archive. The only usage hint is that workspace IDs can be obtained from list_workspaces(), which helps parameter selection but not tool selection.

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