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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations: explains that re-sharing updates the existing grant, clarifies that template sharing never exposes credentials, and describes the response shape. This gives the agent important behavioral context not available in the schema or 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 dense but every sentence carries value. It front-loads the core grant action and levels, then covers the critical conditional, update semantics, security distinction, and return value 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 tool's complexity, conditional parameter logic, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers invocation requirements, behavioral nuances, security implications, and response contents.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful emphasis on the conditional grantee_id constraint and warns that the schema cannot enforce it, which is useful for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb (grant) and resource (template), and clarifies the three access levels. It also distinguishes itself from toolbox.share by explicitly contrasting the delegation/credential exposure behavior.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: it covers granting and re-sharing/updating access, and directs agents to template.unshare for revocation. It also contrasts with toolbox.share to prevent choosing the wrong tool for template sharing.

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