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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the Admin permission requirement, the user-confirmation prompt, and the inheritance behavior for folders and sheets within a space.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the key permission and confirmation constraints. 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?

Given full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining behavioral essentials: admin privilege, confirmation, and inheritance. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents role, team, member, sheetId, and spaceId. The description reinforces the team-or-member and space-or-sheet alternatives but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 (give/grant) and resource (a role on a space or sheet), names the two possible targets, and describes inheritance to folders and sheets. It is clearly distinguishable from access.read, access.revoke, and access.update.

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?

It gives a clear precondition — the caller needs Admin access there — and specifies the confirmation behavior ('Always asks the user first'). It also implicitly distinguishes granting on a space versus a single sheet, though it does not explicitly name access.revoke or access.update as alternatives.

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