grant_disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the on-chain execution, the in-circuit rejection for non-attesters, and the async return shape with polling instructions. This goes beyond schema content and gives useful operational context.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff; every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information (purpose, constraint, async behavior).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, who can call it, and how to handle the async result. It leaves idempotency and fee sponsorship to the schema, which is acceptable given high schema coverage.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the consequence for sessionId (transaction rejected unless original attester) and reiterating level meanings, slightly enhancing the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Grant') with a clear resource ('disclosure level for an attestation to a grantee identity') and specifies the mechanism ('on-chain via the AttestationVault'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_disclosure.

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 explains the attester-only constraint and the async polling pattern, which tells the agent when this tool applies and how to follow up. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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