mgmt_grant_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the body format but not whether the update is partial or full replacement, what permissions are required, what side effects occur, or how errors manifest. 'Update grant' only hints at mutation.

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 brief and mostly free of padding; the body example is genuinely useful. The leading documentation URL is generic and not directly actionable, but overall the structure is compact and front-loaded with the operation and body format.

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 three-parameter update tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and body envelope. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and return-value information, so an agent must infer standard update behavior or consult the API docs.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value by specifying the grant-specific body envelope {"grant": {...}}, which is more concrete than the generic POST/PUT example in the schema. It still does not describe individual grant fields, but it compensates for the schema's genericity.

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 states 'Update grant' and provides the expected body shape, making the operation and resource clear. This distinguishes it from mgmt_grant_get/create/delete and other mgmt_*_update tools, though it largely restates the tool name.

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 implies usage by naming the update operation but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when this should be used instead of mgmt_grant_create or mgmt_grant_delete, leaving context implied.

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