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

The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It details invalidation conditions, atomicity of permissions/code consumption/audit, revocation effects on cached receipts and authenticated downloads, and a clear exclusion (does not alter direct workspace memberships). This goes well beyond the simple readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, giving the agent a precise mental model of side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by three sentences of high-value constraints and side effects. There is no filler; every sentence adds distinct information about invalidation, atomicity, revocation, and scope.

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?

The description covers behavioral aspects well, but it is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not explain the relationship to the request step (request_dossier_access_confirmation), what 'preview' refers to, or the meaning of proposalId and challengeId. Since there is no output schema and schema coverage is low, the description should carry more weight for parameter context, which it does not.

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 only 20% (only idempotencyKey is described). The description mentions the 'code' as the one supplied by the human, and 'revisions' as an invalidation factor, but does not clarify proposalId, challengeId, or revision semantics. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what each parameter represents, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.

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 action: 'Apply precisely the preview confirmed by the human using only the code THEY supplied.' It clearly indicates this tool applies a human-confirmed access grant based on a code. It also includes a scope limitation ('This does not alter direct Snipara workspace memberships') that helps differentiate from some siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies this is the confirmation step after a human preview, and notes conditions under which the code is invalid (changed memberships, permissions, revisions, expired codes). However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like request_dossier_access_confirmation or apply_dossier_library_access. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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