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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful consent prerequisite ('All owners must consent before a private ballot counts'), but it does not explain idempotency behavior, expectedVersion concurrency, reversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects of revoking access.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the consent condition is a concise, relevant addition.

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 mutating tool with four required parameters, a nested grant object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits idempotency/retry semantics, version conflict handling, and the response or outcome of the operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only hints at 'round-specific' access and the owner role; it does not explain idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, voter, or how the granted boolean controls grant vs. revoke behavior.

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 names a specific action ('grants or revokes'), a resource ('round-specific access'), and the actor ('evidence owner'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like request_case_access, which is about requesting rather than granting.

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 provides clear context: it is used by an evidence owner to explicitly grant or revoke round-specific access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the actor and action are specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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