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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: 'ownership doesn't change' clarifies this is a non-transferring share, and 'returns the grant' discloses the response. It stops short of covering re-grant/idempotency behavior or required permissions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and recipient, with the two most important caveats (resource usability, ownership unchanged) packed into the same sentence. No filler.

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 three-required-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the effect on the target project, the ownership invariant, and the return value. It omits permission requirements and duplicate/repeat-grant behavior, which keeps it just short of fully 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 description coverage is 100%: all three parameters carry format descriptions and patterns (org_..., sec_..., proj_...). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (shares/grants), the resource (a secret), and the target (another project), plus the consequence (that project's resources can use it). It is clearly distinguishable from grant_secrets_delete and grant_secrets_list by verb alone, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 clause 'so that project's resources can use it' gives an implied use context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or on prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions, whether the target project must exist). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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