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

Annotations already declare the tool as a non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description's main contribution is the caller-authorization requirement (owner/admin/secret creator), which is real context not present in annotations. It omits what happens on repeated grants, whether existing rights are replaced, and the significance of expires_in_s.

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?

Only one fragmentary sentence ending in an ellipsis, which reads as truncated rather than deliberately concise. There is no front-loaded action statement to anchor the rest.

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?

A 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and only annotations for safety profile. The description does not supply enough detail about the rights values or expiration semantics for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps loosely to 'name' (key name), 'to' (one member), and 'space', but never names the 'rights' parameter or its get/put/delete enum values, and ignores 'expires_in_s' entirely.

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 conveys the effect — granting 'a capability on one key name in this space for one member' — which distinguishes it from space_secret_get/put/delete/list siblings. However, it is a sentence fragment with no verb and trailing ellipsis, so the agent must infer 'grant' from the tool name rather than read it.

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 audience clause ('Owner, admin or whoever put the secret') gives an authorization precondition, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling space_secret_revoke for removing rights, and no note about re-granting or expiring.

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