grant_permission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, persistence of the permission grant, host requirements, or behavior in error cases. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 that is direct and to the point. It communicates the essential operation with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should compensate by explaining return values, preconditions, or error scenarios. It does none of that, leaving the agent uncertain about what happens after the call or what is required for success.

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 input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage) with clear descriptions including an example for 'permission'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 (grant) and the target (runtime permission to an application package), which distinguishes it from siblings like revoke_permission. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's core function.

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 context (when you need to grant a permission on a device) but does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, prerequisites like the app being installed, or any exclusions. This is acceptable but not explicit.

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