Create Grant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful operational trait ('Disabled in read-only mode') and implies a write operation, but it does not describe side effects such as whether an existing grant is replaced, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses one point for being so terse that it borders on restating the title rather than expanding on it.

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 schema and output schema cover parameters and returns, and the description adds the read-only constraint. However, it omits how create_grant relates to update_grant/delete_grant and what creating a grant entails for an existing user, leaving selection context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond the schema's 'app-level access' context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the operation and object: granting a user app-level access, which is more specific than the title. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_grant/delete_grant or state that it creates a new grant resource rather than modifying an existing one.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as update_grant or delete_grant. The only conditional phrase, 'Disabled in read-only mode,' is a runtime constraint, not guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.

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