Module Permission Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say where the file is written, whether an existing permissions.yml is overwritten or merged, whether a Drupal cache rebuild is needed, or what permission entry shape is expected. 'Create or update' hints at mutation but not at destructive merge semantics.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight editing. It is adequately sized but not informative.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a file-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition omits everything an agent needs: file location, merge/overwrite behavior, and the structure of the permissions array.

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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. It never clarifies what 'path' is relative to, what the object elements inside 'permissions' should contain, or how machine_name relates to the filename, so the agent is left guessing at required input shape.

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 pair ('Create or update') and resource ('permissions.yml') with the qualifying detail 'custom permissions', so the agent knows what artifact is affected. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as config_set or permission_audit, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like config_set or module_config_schema_create, nor any prerequisite (e.g. module must exist). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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