marketplace_grant_location_access

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

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses the resulting state — 'pending (or immediate active for eligible draft/private apps)' — and the 'exact confirmation' requirement for apply, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of describing failure modes or auth specifics.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No filler, though the parenthetical makes the second sentence slightly heavier than necessary.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the state outcome and confirmation gate reasonably. It leaves open what the confirmation value must be (only 'exact' is stated) and what a 'plan' result looks like, which are meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates by explaining the mode dichotomy (plan/apply) and the confirmation requirement, and location/application semantics are inferable from 'location owner grants access' and 'installation.' But location_id and application_id remain undocumented beyond inference.

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 names a specific verb+resource (location owner grants access) and frames it as 'step 1 of installation,' which situates it relative to activate_installation and install_sidebar_frame. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself against sibling lifecycle tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It implies this is the first step of an installation flow and flags that 'apply requires exact confirmation,' giving some context. However, it never states when to choose plan vs. apply, or when a sibling like activate_installation would be the right call instead. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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