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

With annotations declaring non-read-only but idempotent and non-destructive, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns an approval link, permission changes are not immediate but take effect on the next call, and API-key connections are immutable. Not covered: whether repeated calls create duplicate requests (despite idempotentHint=true) or what happens if the user declines.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its return value, followed by timing and the exception case. No filler and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return value (a one-click approval link) and the delayed effect of the grant. It is missing only failure/decline paths, which is a modest gap for an otherwise self-contained single-parameter tool.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already carries the key guidance ('Ask the user, never choose for them'). The description adds nothing about how to pick permission tiers or how many to request, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Ask for more permissions') and immediately clarifies the mechanism (returns a one-click approval link). It is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like list_granted_scopes or list_api_keys, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Use is clear from 'Ask for more permissions' when the current grant is insufficient, and it supplies an important exclusion: connections made with an API key have fixed permissions and should create a new key instead. It does not cover sequencing (e.g., check list_granted_scopes first), so it stops short of 5.

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