coda_add_permission

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifying) and the description elaborates on the effect (granting access, removing implicit access with 'none') and the return of the created entry. No contradiction; it adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the primary action. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main functionality, constraints, and return type. It might benefit from mentioning required permissions but is adequate for agent use.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying mutual exclusivity of principal_email and principal_domain and the effect of the 'none' access level, which are not in the schema descriptions.

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 'Add a permission entry to a Coda doc' with specific verb and resource. It explains the action (granting access by email or domain) and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_permission by its focus on adding permissions.

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 explicit usage constraints: 'Specify either principal_email or principal_domain (not both)'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but the mutual exclusivity guidance is clear and helpful for correct invocation.

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