Выдать доступ к сегменту

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds behavioral details: it explains the meaning of permission values ('edit' allows editing and using, 'view' only viewing/using) and discloses the response shape including that created_at is server-filled. It doesn't mention idempotency behavior, but annotations already hint at it, so the description provides valuable additional context without contradiction.

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 two sentences long, immediately states the core action, and includes only necessary contextual details (permission meanings, response format). It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 grant-creation tool, the description covers the purpose, permission semantics, and response shape. While there is no output schema, the response format is described inline, which is helpful. It could mention idempotency or duplicate handling, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers that, making the description adequately complete.

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?

The parameter schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning for the 'permission' parameter by elaborating on each enum value, which is not fully explained in the schema. It also implicitly clarifies that segment_id comes from list_segments or creation responses, though this is also in the schema. This extra semantic enrichment justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Создаёт' (creates) and clearly defines the resource: a permission (grant) on a segment for a specified Yandex login. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_segment_grants and delete_segment_grant by its unique action and parameters (segment_id, user_login, permission).

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 clearly states the action and the permission options, placing it as the creation counterpart to list/delete grant tools. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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