Grant Wiki page access

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which covers the mutation profile, so the description is not required to restate that. It goes beyond them by disclosing a concrete failure mode (refusal when a personal access already exists) and the fact that a new access entry is returned. No mention of permission requirements or rate limits, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the failure/alternative routing, then the read-before-write hint. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the return value, a refusal case, and the alternatives needed to route correctly. It is nearly complete; missing only permission/auth prerequisites, which the openWorldHint annotation gestures at but does not specify.

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%, including nested details for uid/cloud_uid, group src/id, role enum, and inheritance, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'a user or a group a role' lightly echoes the exactly-one-of constraint already stated in the schema and adds no syntax or format information beyond it.

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 (Grant), resource (a role on a wiki page), and the outcome (returns the new access entry). An agent can distinguish it from wiki_access_update and wiki_access_delete 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?

Explicitly names the failed-over alternative ('A user who already holds a personal access is refused: change it with access_update') and tells the agent how to inspect current state (access_update / pages_get_by_id with access field selection). This is when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives in one compact block.

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