sigma_create_grant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the create-or-update dual behavior, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or update semantics. Minimal value beyond annotations.

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 compact sentences, no redundancy. Action and required inputs are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core inputs but misses usage context relative to sibling grant management tools. With an output schema available, return values are covered. Lacks guidance on when to use this generic grant creator versus specialized alternatives.

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 only defines a generic 'body' object with additionalProperties. The description specifies the four required fields (inodeId, granteeId, permission, type), significantly compensating for schema gaps. However, it doesn't explain valid values for permission or type, limiting full parameter clarity.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates or updates a grant, using specific verbs and a resource type. The required body fields are listed, distinguishing it from other grant-related tools like sigma_grant_workbook_access.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling grant tools (workbook access, workspace access, connection grants). The description only describes the action, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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