ftrack_grant_api_key_security_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the action and does not disclose whether the grant replaces or adds to existing roles, whether permissions are required, what the result of granting is, or if it is reversible. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence, clearly front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition and is appropriately concise for a simple mutation tool.

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 tool is low in complexity with fully documented parameters, but the description omits any context about prerequisites, behavioral effects, or return values. While not severely incomplete, it is minimally adequate and would benefit from a note specifying global scope or that the role is applied immediately.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both api_key_id and security_role_id. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('grant') and resource ('security role to an API key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like revoke or project-scoped grants. While the scope (global vs. project) is not explicitly stated, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description (granting a security role to an API key), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as ftrack_grant_api_key_project or ftrack_add_user_security_role. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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