Workbooks Grant Workbook Access

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the description does not need to restate it. It adds nothing further: it does not say whether an existing grant is updated or duplicated, what happens on a permission downgrade, or what errors arise for an unknown grantee. The idempotentHint in annotations is never elaborated in prose.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the value domains. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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. However, for a permission-mutating tool with zero schema coverage and rich sibling context, the description omits grantee_id semantics, interactions with existing grants, and any relation to the grant-listing/revoking siblings, leaving an agent with gaps it must guess at.

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% and all four parameters are required, so the description carries the burden. It supplies the value domains for grant_type ('member'/'team') and permission ('view'/'explore'/'edit'), which is real value the schema lacks, but says nothing about grantee_id (whose meaning depends on grant_type) or workbook_id. Half the parameters remain unexplained.

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 ('Grant') and resource ('access to a workbook'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from near-namesakes such as workbooks_list_workbook_grants, workspace_grant_workspace_access, or admin_create_grant, so an agent must infer the correct scope from the name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. the grantee must already exist), and no mention of the sibling tools that list or revoke grants. The agent gets no routing help beyond tool name.

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