Change the roles on a DataLens shared entry

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false). The description adds genuine value beyond them by explaining the delta/partial-update semantics: 'the roles not named stay as they are'. It still omits permission requirements and rate/behavioral caveats, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the core action stated first and no filler. It is efficient, though the '…' in the role enumeration leaves a small ambiguity that a slightly longer list could have resolved.

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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, covering the delta semantics. It lacks the permission/authorization context an agent would want before attempting a role change, leaving a real gap for a write tool.

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 fields are documented, but the description goes beyond the schema by naming the role-id format (``datalens.sharedEntries.*`` with viewer/admin examples), which the schema's generic 'ID of the role assigned to the subject' does not provide. This meaningfully aids filling roleId.

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 clear verb ('give or take away') and resource ('roles on a shared entry'), so an agent understands it mutates role bindings. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like datalens_collections_access_bindings_update or datalens_workbooks_access_bindings_update, which target the same kind of operation on different resource types.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. admin rights needed to change bindings), and no alternative named (such as the companion datalens_sharedentries_access_bindings_list for reading current roles). Usage must be inferred from the name and title alone.

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