Set contest permission (admin)

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

Annotations already cover read-only (false), destructive (false), idempotent (true). The description adds the requirement for contest administration rights and the prerequisite step, which is useful context. It does not elaborate on side effects or failure behavior, but with annotations providing the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a prerequisite and a permission note. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, lack of return-value explanation is acceptable. The description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, a required prerequisite (search_users), and the permission requirement. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it stops short of detailing edge cases like overwriting existing permissions.

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 100%, and the schema already includes examples for role and descriptions for user_id and contest_id. The description's note to resolve user id via search_users adds practical guidance beyond the schema, but it does not significantly extend parameter meaning for other fields.

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?

Description states the specific action (grant a role) on a specific resource (contest) and gives role examples. It is clear and distinct from the sibling 'remove_contest_permission' by the verb 'grant', though it does not explicitly name the alternative or contrast.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (resolve user id with repovive_search_users) and a permission requirement (admin rights), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like remove_contest_permission or get_contest_permissions. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection.

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