sigma_grant_workbook_access

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no further context about side effects, idempotency implications, permission overwrites, or required authentication. It only restates the action and allowed values, failing to disclose behavioral details beyond what annotations imply.

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 ultra-compact, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and using a concise list for parameter values. No filler words or redundant restatements; however, it is arguably too terse to cover all necessary details, but for conciseness this is appropriate.

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?

With 4 required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema content provided, the description covers only a fraction of the necessary context. It omits the relationship between grantee_id and grant_type, acceptable inputs for workbook_id, and any behavioral outcomes beyond granting. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overall tool context remains incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. It explains allowed values for grant_type and permission, but leaves workbook_id and grantee_id undefined, and does not clarify that grantee_id semantics depend on grant_type (member vs team). This is partial compensation at best.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure ('Grant access to a workbook') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_grant_workspace_access by targeting workbooks. It also lists valid values for grant_type and permission, making the tool's purpose 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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives (e.g., sigma_list_workbook_grants for viewing grants, sigma_grant_workspace_access for workspace-level grants) or any prerequisites like the existence of the workbook or grantee. The allowed values hint at usage but are primarily parameter constraints, not contextual guidance.

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