Coda List Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds useful information beyond them, spelling out the shape of each entry (principal plus permission type) and the possible access levels (read, write, etc.). It does not mention pagination behavior or any permission/auth prerequisites for the read.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the return details and the alternative-tool routing. Tight and readable, with only mild redundancy given that an output schema already describes the returned fields.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, the description need not explain return values. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits whether pagination is required for large docs and any permission prerequisites for reading ACLs.

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% (limit, cursor, doc_id are all documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all permission entries (ACL) for a Coda doc') and immediately clarifies what those entries are (who has access, their access level, the principal). It also names the mutation siblings (coda_add_permission, coda_delete_permission), so an agent can place the tool without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit routing for the write side of permissions: use coda_add_permission to grant or coda_delete_permission to revoke. It does not, however, differentiate this read tool from the overlapping coda_get_acl_settings or coda_get_sharing_metadata siblings, so the when-to-choose guidance is clear but incomplete.

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