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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond them by noting that ownership does not change and that the grant is returned. It stops short of warning that idempotentHint=false means repeat calls create additional grants, which would have made this a 5.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and packs the target, the downstream effect and the ownership invariant without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description usefully notes that it returns the grant and that ownership is unaffected. It leaves out any permission or authorization prerequisite for granting a skill across projects, which is the one meaningful gap.

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%, with orgID, skillID and target_project_id each documented with format hints, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format or selection detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 a skill'), the resource (a skill) and the scope (with another project), plus the effect ('so its agent configs can attach it'). It is trivially distinguishable from its siblings grant_skills_delete and grant_skills_list, whose names already mark the differing operations.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for making a skill attachable by another project's agent configs. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no when-not-to-use clause, and no reference to grant_skills_list or grant_skills_delete as alternatives.

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