Coda Add Permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation nature is covered; the description reinforces this and adds real behavioral detail beyond the schema, notably that access='none' removes implicit access and that the call returns the created permission entry. It omits any auth/permission requirements for granting access.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping rules; every sentence conveys distinct, useful information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the action, targeting rules, and access semantics adequately. Return values need not be detailed since an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint not encoded in the schema: the mutual exclusion of principal_email and principal_domain. It also enumerates the access levels, though it omits mention of suppress_notification.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a permission entry to a Coda doc') that immediately distinguishes it from siblings like coda_list_permissions and coda_delete_permission. The scope (user by email or entire domain) is stated up front.

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?

It gives a clear usage rule: 'Specify either principal_email or principal_domain (not both),' which is actionable guidance an agent needs before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., vs. coda_get_acl_settings), so it falls below a 5.

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