Grant or revoke a system operation for users/roles

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the grant/revoke effect, update-on-repeat behavior, and blocked OData modifications. It does not detail side effects or confirm reversibility, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and add critical behavioral and usage hints. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 the three required parameters with thorough schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers functionality, idempotence, and alternative tool prohibition. It could mention the expected return (e.g., success status) but is otherwise complete for agent use.

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 is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the boolean's role as grant/revoke and the update behavior for repeat calls, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. This extra context 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 clearly states the tool grants or revokes a system operation for users/roles using specific verbs and resource identifiers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from generic create/update tools by noting that OData modifications on SysAdminOperationGrantee are blocked, which helps the agent select the correct tool among siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for granting or revoking system operations, and not to use generic create/update tools. It also mentions idempotent behavior for repeated calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the sibling delete-admin-operation-grantee for deletion, leaving a small gap.

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