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

The description adds some traits beyond annotations, such as 'revocable' and 'audited,' but it does not explain operational behavior like whether the grant takes effect immediately, whether confirmation in Yardstick is required, or what permissions are needed. The title's parenthetical 'confirm in Yardstick' hints at an important confirmation step that the description fails to address.

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?

The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the action and avoids filler. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of operational detail.

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?

This is a complex create operation with 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. A single abstract sentence does not give an agent enough context to choose required subjects, scopes, target IDs, artifact classes, or timing fields, let alone understand the confirmation behavior hinted at in the title.

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%, and the description names none of the 10 parameters. 'Reasoned' and 'revocable' only vaguely hint at `reason` and `revocable`, leaving the meaning of `subject_person_id`, `scope`, `target_id`, `artifact_classes`, `expires_at`, and others completely unexplained.

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 clearly states an active verb ('Create') and a concrete resource ('access grant'), and the title reinforces this as granting someone access to a record. It is distinguishable from the sibling list/read/revoke tools by action type, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of checking existing grants via list/read, and no note about using revoke for removal. For an access-control mutation, failing to mention prerequisites or alternatives leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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