Grant a user access

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context that the tool cannot create accounts or invite by email, and notes the return value (confirmation plus apiPointBalance). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise—three sentences—with the core action front-loaded. It efficiently includes key limitations, alternative tool guidance, and return value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple tool with only 2 parameters, annotations cover safety/idempotency, and the description covers usage constraints and return format. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly, especially with sibling guidance.

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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so the schema fully describes userId and role. The description reinforces that userId is a numeric Avito user id (not email/phone) and that role is 'the given role', but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Grants an existing Avito user access'), the target resource ('ad account'), and the required parameter ('role'). It distinguishes from siblings like set_user_role and delete_user by focusing on granting initial access rather than modifying or removing access.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool and when not to: 'this tool cannot invite by email or phone, and cannot create an Avito account' and 'If the user already has access, change their role with set_user_role instead.' This provides clear alternative guidance.

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