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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces and enriches this: omitted principals lose access, empty grants[] is invalid, every replacement must retain at least one Admin grant, and new objects start as creator-only Admin. It also documents role restrictions (ORGANIZATION never Admin, CLERK_ADMIN org-admin only).

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then rules, then two worked examples. Dense but almost every sentence carries a constraint or routing instruction; slightly long, with some rules that could be tightened.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, replacement semantics, role validity, and a full workflow, plus examples. It does not describe the response or error behavior on invalid input, which is the only notable 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic constraints the schema cannot express: ORGANIZATION may only be Reader/Editor, CLERK_ADMIN applies only to Clerk org admins and means No access when omitted, and resourceKind maps to the four object types. It stops short of explaining the slug parameter, which the schema covers.

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 ('Replace the full grant list on a dashboard, report, budget, or cost alert') and enumerates the four supported resource kinds. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling get_object_permissions, which reads rather than replaces.

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?

Explicitly says to call get_object_permissions first and send the full list including retained grants, tells the agent not to use PRIVATE/PUBLIC or teamId on create/update tools, and routes people/teams resolution to list_users and list_teams. When-to-use and prerequisites are fully covered.

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