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 that the operation is disabled in read-only mode. It does not disclose whether special permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what side effects occur, or how partial updates behave. For a mutation tool, this is minimal.

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 extremely concise: one functional sentence plus a read-only mode warning. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No filler 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?

For a mutation tool with five required parameters, a nested object, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'grant' is, how update_mask interacts with the body, or any operational semantics. The read-only note helps, but the overall context is insufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only provides a high-level phrase ('app-level access') that is not specific enough to clarify the update-mask behavior or the grant resource body. Baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a user's app-level access'), which is reasonably informative. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like create_grant and delete_grant by the verb, though it does not explicitly use the word 'grant' in the description.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_grant or delete_grant. The only contextual note is that it is disabled in read-only mode, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema.

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