Workbooks Create Report Grant

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true). The description adds the payload shape (grants list with grantee and permission values) but does not disclose auth requirements, side effects such as replacing existing grants, or other behavioral traits beyond the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the payload requirement. No wasted words, though the second sentence is slightly terse and could benefit from a brief clarification of whether grants replace or add to existing permissions.

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?

Given the tool has annotations (which cover safety profile) and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description is adequate for invocation. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., required admin/owner permissions), whether it replaces or appends existing grants, and any rate-limit or error behavior.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does a good job describing the complex nested body parameter: a list of objects with grantee (memberId or teamId) and permission enum ('view' | 'edit'). The report_id parameter is obvious and not explained, but the critical nested structure is well covered.

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 states a specific verb (Grant) and resource (permission on a report), making it clear this is a grant-creation tool. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like workbooks_delete_report_grant and workbooks_grant_workbook_access via the 'report' resource, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely states the action and payload requirements.

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