clio_update_grant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the routing path and argument format, omitting side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. For an update operation, this is insufficient.

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 very short (three sentences) but includes unnecessary routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that is irrelevant for an agent selecting the tool. The first sentence merely restates the name. It could be more streamlined and focused on functional purpose.

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?

The description lacks critical context for an update operation: no mention of return value (despite having an output schema), no guidance on idempotency, no required argument fields, and no behavioral constraints. It is incomplete for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds marginal clarity beyond the schema. The description does not specify expected keys, required fields, or constraints, leaving the agent with little guidance on how to construct the JSON. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 identifies the tool as an 'update_grant' operation, which conveys a verb+resource (update grant) and distinguishes it from create, delete, get, and list grant siblings. However, it provides no additional detail on what a Clio grant is or what updating it entails, leaving the purpose vaguely clear.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_create_grant or clio_delete_grant. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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