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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, destructive profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: owner-session with origin/CSRF checks, org API keys staying within existing grants, revocation side effects, and private no-store responses. This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes well past the structured fields.

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 grant action and its constraints are front-loaded, and most sentences earn their place. The collection-sharing sentence is somewhat tangential for a base-focused tool and adds density, keeping it just below a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers ownership, auth prerequisites, caching, and revocation effects, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It does not describe the success response, but annotations and the auth detail make the definition largely complete.

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 both parameters (base_id, organization_id) are already documented in the schema, including the list_knowledge_teams dependency. The description adds little parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Give an existing team read access to your base") that an agent can distinguish from siblings like share_collection_team and publish_base. The additional line "Sharing does not publish a resource" reinforces the boundary against the publish_* family.

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 the context (granting read access to a team) and explicitly disambiguates against publishing, giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool such as share_collection_team or stating when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the 5-level explicit routing.

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