grant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: the call itself constitutes approval ('consent-carrying'), the assignment takes effect on the subject's next call, outranks token claims, and requires owner tier. This goes beyond basic description, though some details (e.g., error cases) are missing.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for the main action, followed by focused explanatory details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core operation.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers behavior, auth requirement ('Tier: owner'), and parameter semantics for subject. It lacks return value or confirmation details, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'subject' as the 'sub' claim from access_requests(), adding precision. However, 'circle' receives no additional meaning beyond its name. The description provides partial value but not 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Assign a subject to a circle'), specifying the verb and both resources. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'revoke' (opposite action) and 'access_requests' (viewing requests), making the 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?

The description implies the tool is for granting circle membership, contrasting with 'revoke' for removal, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned among the 17 sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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