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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the Admin-permission requirement and the user-confirmation behavior, which the annotations do not express. It falls short of warning that lowering a role can strip someone's access entirely, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler; the operation, the prerequisite, the permission requirement and the confirmation rule each land in a single clause, and the operation is front-loaded.

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 four-parameter mutation with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description covers the essential prerequisites and authorization. Only the practical consequence of a role downgrade (loss of prior capabilities) is left unstated.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema leaves ambiguous: the target is a space OR a sheet, clarifying that the optional spaceId and sheetId are mutually exclusive despite both being non-required. It also ties aclId back to access.read.

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 the verb (change), the exact resource (the role of one access entry), and the scope (on a space or a sheet). That scope wording separates it from access.grant (adds an entry) and access.revoke (removes one) without the agent needing to open the schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and alternative: read the entries with access.read first. It also states the caller must have Admin access at that target and that the call always asks the user first, so the agent knows both the permission gate and the confirmation flow.

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