gateway_admin_grant_resource

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds the admin permission requirement and notes dry_run defaults to true, but it never explains that dry_run prevents actual changes, what happens when dry_run is false, or that the operation is a persistent mutation. This is minimal disclosure for an admin mutation.

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 one tight sentence with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the permission/default caveats are packed efficiently. Every word contributes.

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?

This is a complex 11-parameter admin mutation with no safety annotations, yet the entire description is a single sentence. It lacks parameter semantics, side-effect disclosure, and routing guidance; the output schema does not compensate for these gaps.

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% with 11 parameters, yet the description only mentions resource_pattern and dry_run. subject_type, subject_key, system, effect, actions_json, priority, ttl_days, resource_type, and reason are left completely undefined, so the agent cannot correctly construct the required arguments.

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 pair ('Grant or deny one MCP resource pattern') and the resource type 'resource pattern' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like grant_scope and grant_access_package. Even though it doesn't name a sibling, the scope is 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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as revoke_resource, grant_scope, or grant_access_package. 'Requires access:admin' is a permission prerequisite, not a usage criterion, and no exclusions or preferred contexts are stated.

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