Data: rls

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the hard limitation that it cannot remove access, the RLS-enabled-entity precondition, and the instruction to confirm with the user first. The phrase 'changes or deletes existing data' is slightly loose given it cannot remove access, but it is not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and structured as view-then-set-then-caveats. It is five sentences and repeats the '(row-level security (RLS))' expansion twice, a minor redundancy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return shape (users with names and read-only status). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the presence/absence of `user` toggles the tool between read and grant mode, and `readonly` is described as defaulting to full access. That enriches the schema's terse flag descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('View or set RLS user access on a record') and immediately clarifies the dual-mode behavior (view vs grant) based on whether a user id is supplied. This is clearly distinct from the surrounding data_create/data_update/data_delete CRUD siblings.

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?

Explicitly maps the two usage modes: without a user id it reads access, with a user id it grants access. It also gives a meaningful precondition ('only matters on entities with RLS turned on') and a caution ('check with the user before running it'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it lands just below the top band.

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