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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful scoping context (16-hex account id, ops-limited grants) but never discloses that the same tool can revoke access via the 'revoke' flag, nor what permissions the caller needs or whether re-granting is additive — significant omissions for a delegation-of-access tool.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, which is good, but the text is visibly truncated and the ellipsis removes the part that would have made it useful. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than economy.

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 5-parameter, open-world mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain every parameter, the revoke path, and what the caller receives on success. It covers roughly half of one parameter set and cuts off before the duration semantics.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains 'to' (a 16-hex account id) and gestures at 'ops' (optionally only some operations) and 'days' ('for some...'), but leaves 'revoke' and 'connector' completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 core verb+resource is inferable — granting another account permission to call your integration connection — but the sentence is truncated mid-thought ('for some...'), so the scope (duration? full grant?) is left dangling. No sibling is named to distinguish it from integration_connect, integration_call, or space_grant, which matters in a tool list this dense.

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 statement of when to use this versus integration_connect (establishing a connection) or permission_propose (requesting access), and no prerequisites such as ownership of the connector. The agent must infer the entire decision rule from the tool name.

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