Grant Forms survey access

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds real context beyond that: it states the return is 'every permission' (valuable since there is no output schema) and clarifies the idempotency consequence with 'Granting someone who already has the action changes nothing'.

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 sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the idempotency note is a useful trailing clarification. Sized appropriately for a two-parameter mutation.

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?

Annotations and a fully covered schema carry most of the burden, and the description adds the return-value note. However, for a mutation tool with three closely related siblings it omits the routing guidance needed to call 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 schema already documents survey_id, user/group, and the action enum. The description only restates 'a user or a group' and 'action' with no added syntax, format, or constraint detail, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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: grants a user or group an action on a form. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools (forms_access_set, forms_access_revoke) that an agent must distinguish it from.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. Given that forms_access_set and forms_access_revoke sit right beside it, an agent gets no help deciding which of the three to call for a given intent.

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