beel_put_member_grant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that only the company in the path is touched and other grants remain unchanged, and it warns that NONE is not accepted. It also clarifies the implicit access of OWNER/ADMIN roles. This provides a clear behavioral profile without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and information-dense, starting with the core purpose, then scope, then edge cases, and ending with the endpoint. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most critical facts and avoids any filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, the scope of mutation, the non-accepted value, and the special case of OWNER/ADMIN. It also provides the endpoint and path parameter composition. It does not mention authentication requirements or error responses for invalid members, but these are largely implied by the schema descriptions (e.g., account_id mentions 403). Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool 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 description coverage is high (75%), and the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions, including the body's access_level enum and the note that the company is taken from the path. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mainly reiterates the exclusion of NONE and the path-dependence. Since the schema carries the semantic load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds minimal extra value.

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-resource pair: 'Grants a MEMBER access to one company, or changes the access_level of an existing grant.' It clearly identifies the resource (member's grant for a company) and explicitly differentiates from siblings like beel_delete_member_grant by noting that NONE is not accepted and removal is done via deletion. It also clarifies that only the company in the path is affected, distinguishing it from broader grant management tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use it to grant or change access, and explicitly says to remove access by 'deleting the grant' (pointing to a sibling tool). It also states that OWNER and ADMIN members cannot receive grants, which prevents incorrect calls. These exclusions and alternatives are clearly stated, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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