documents_add_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning permission levels, idempotency, whether existing permissions are overwritten, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is properly front-loaded and minimal, though it lacks additional context that would belong in other dimensions.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description. While the schema fully documents the input parameters, the description does not provide enough context about the operation's behavior, such as what happens on success, whether permissions are additive, or how it differs from collection-level grants. For an agent to use it reliably, more behavioral detail is needed.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (id, userId, permission) with descriptions and a permission enum, giving schema coverage of 100%. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the description need not repeat them; however, it also adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'grant' with the resource 'a user access to a document,' clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from the sibling tool documents_remove_user, which revokes access, and from collections_add_user, which targets collections rather than documents.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as documents_remove_user or collections_add_user. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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