Datasets Add Connection Grant

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permission requirements, side effects, or what happens on repeat/additive grants. Given the annotation coverage, the description carries little additional behavioral weight.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core action first and the enum value explanations second. No filler sentences, though the enum lines are terse fragments rather than fully structured parameter notes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Still, for a 4-required-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained connection_id/grantee_id and the absence of any usage or permission guidance leave meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does clarify two of four parameters by giving valid grant_type ('member'/'team') and permission ('annotate'/'usage') values with meanings. However, connection_id and grantee_id — including what form a grantee_id takes — remain completely undocumented.

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+resource ('Add a grant to a connection') that an agent can distinguish from the nearby datasets_list_connection_grants and datasets_delete_connection_path_grant. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the workspace/workbook grant tools) or on prerequisites such as required admin permissions. The enum values are explained, but that is parameter semantics, not usage context.

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