Run Grok Build

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral details: the run is headless, it returns model text plus session/usage/cost metadata, and requests above GROK_MCP_PERMISSION_CEILING are rejected rather than silently downgraded. It does not over-explain advanced semantics already covered in the schema, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: it states the command, indicates the return payload, and calls out the critical permission-boundary behavior. No fluff or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 large 20-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives essential orientation: what it does, what it returns, and the permission cap. The backing schema supplies the rest. It stops just short of a 5 because it does not summarize the long-running or side-effecting nature of an agent run beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 20 parameters with detailed, self-contained descriptions, so the tool description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the permission ceiling note, but the schema carries the burden and does so well.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Run a headless Grok Build agent (`grok -p`)". It clearly distinguishes this from sibling utility tools like status, check, review, and stop by identifying it as the execution/run tool.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool to invoke a headless Grok Build run, and it adds a meaningful note about permission ceilings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but its role as the main run tool is strongly implied and differentiated from sibling inspection/control tools.

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