npm_team_grant

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

The description adds the authorization requirement, which is useful behavioral context not in annotations. It does not describe side effects (e.g., overwriting existing permissions), but annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints, so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by format and authorization details. Every sentence earns its place with no waste or redundancy.

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 covers the action, input format, and prerequisites, which is sufficient given the schema richness and annotations. It doesn't describe outputs, but no output schema exists and the info is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 already describes all three parameters with examples and enum values, and the description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond repeating the 'scope:team' format already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 ('Grant'), the resource ('a team ... permission on a package'), and specific permission levels ('read-only or read-write'). It also gives the format for team scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like revoke or delete.

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 provides clear context by stating prerequisites ('Requires org admin or team admin') and implicitly defines when to use it (to grant team permissions). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not' guidance.

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