add_future_job_permission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses that this is a write operation requiring admin privileges, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of saying what happens on duplicate grants, whether it affects existing jobs, or how the grant is reversed, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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-loads the core operation and the admin-only constraint before any parameter detail, and every sentence is functional. The telegraphic one-line-per-parameter style is efficient but slightly abrupt, keeping it just below top marks.

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?

Given a full output schema (return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, authorization level, scoping, and helper tools for every parameter. The only real omission is an explicit contrast with add_job_permission and the removal path for the grant.

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 baseline is 3. The description's guidance for user_id/user_role_id/office_id/department_id largely restates what the schema already declares ('get from list_users', etc.); the only marginal addition is framing office_id and department_id as scoping levers.

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 ('Auto-grant'), resource ('a role'), and scope ('on all future jobs'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling add_job_permission (current jobs) and remove_future_job_permission. An agent can identify the operation without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a concrete user-utterance example that maps intent to this tool, plus explicit prerequisite lookups (list_users, list_user_roles, list_offices, list_departments) for building the call. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it versus add_job_permission, so the boundary is inferable rather than explicit.

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