Grant local context access

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact — that grant caps do not reserve shared credits — which matters for credit budgeting, but it omits anything about the returned capability token or how the grant is later revoked.

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?

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-sized for a five-required-parameter mutation tool, but nothing is wasted and the ordering is correct.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter, 5-required tool in a context lifecycle family the description is too thin — it never explains the returned capability, the relationship to local_context_create, or how the grant relates to local_context_revoke/release.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail (owner_token authorization warning, ttl bounds, caps bounded by remaining context budget). The description adds only the credit-reservation nuance around caps, which is a marginal delta over the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 verb+resource is present ('Create a scoped child access capability'), but 'capability' is abstract jargon and the description never says 'context' or 'access grant' — the agent has to map it back to the tool name and title. It also gives no differentiation from siblings like local_context_create or local_context_revoke.

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 statement of when to grant versus create/revoke/release, no prerequisites named, and no alternative tool referenced. The second clause is a constraint, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no routing help.

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