grant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (writing to the write-receipt chain), exact-match determinism, ownership constraints, audit visibility, and refusal behavior when no selector is passed.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers constraints. Every sentence adds useful information, though the single-paragraph format could be more scannable with bullet separation for the selectors.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains membership semantics, ownership, revocation, audit behavior, and no-selector refusal. The main gaps are the lack of an explicit return-value description and the undocumented `note` parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meanings of scope, tag, key, ids, and `by`; the required `agent` parameter is implied as the recipient. However, the `note` parameter is not described, leaving one parameter semantically unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Give another agent READ access to a SUBSET of this store's memories.' It also clarifies the operation is about access grants and records the act, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like revoke, grant_log, and recall_as.

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 explicitly says to pass exactly one selector, names each selector kind, explains the `by` ownership rule, and tells the agent to read with `recall_as` and end with `revoke`. It also explains why a query selector is intentionally absent, preventing misuse.

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