sigma_add_connection_grant

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, idempotency implications, or any effect on existing grants, even though the annotations already convey that it is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The bar is lower with annotations, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 description is extremely concise and well-structured. It opens with the main purpose, then provides a clean bullet list of the key parameter values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and parameter values. However, it lacks any context about when to use this vs. other grant tools, how it interacts with existing grants, or any prerequisites. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines grant_type ('member' or 'team') and permission ('annotate' vs. 'usage') with human-readable meanings. Though connection_id and grantee_id are not defined, their roles are implied by context and grant_type. This is a solid compensation for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states 'Add a grant to a connection' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling grant tools like sigma_grant_workbook_access and sigma_grant_workspace_access, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The additional lines about grant_type and permission further clarify the operation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_create_grant, sigma_list_connection_grants, or sigma_delete_connection_path_grant. The description implies its purpose but does not specify scenarios or exclusions.

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