create_project_grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (issue grant), precondition (owner), and target audience. However, it does not disclose what happens if the grant already exists, any limits, or the response format. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose and target, the second lists parameters and requirement. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Considering 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what, when, who, and required params. It lacks details on return value or errors, but for a creation tool, it is fairly 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is high. The description adds value by grouping parameters (e.g., 'optional policy / expires_at') and providing examples for 'capability' (like 'deploy', 'functions:write'), which goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 verb 'issue a per-project capability grant' and specifies the resource (wallet for agent/CI principals that aren't broad org members). It includes examples of capabilities and distinguishes from siblings like 'revoke_project_grant' by focusing on creation.

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 states when to use: for agent/CI principals that aren't broad org members. It also mentions the prerequisite of being an org owner, which implies when not to use. Missing direct alternatives but sibling tools provide context.

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