Issue a child grant as the requester

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent local mutation; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the grant is 'saved under a fresh child log id' and that 'nothing is sent', which is critical for understanding this is a local signing step rather than a network publish.

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 action is front-loaded, but the opening sentence is a dense run-on packing parentheticals ('sized with maxHeight, the batch ceiling canopy prices it by') that is hard to parse. The closing next-step sentence is efficient, offsetting some of the bloat.

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?

For a cryptographic grant-issuance mutation with no output schema, the description explains persistence and the follow-up step but never says what the call returns (e.g., the fresh child log id or the signed grant), which an agent needs to proceed to register_grant.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and the UUID pattern. The description restates grantee default ('this server's own') and the pricing role of maxHeight, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource: it signs a child data-log creation grant using the server's authority key. It also distinguishes the step from the sibling register_grant by declaring 'Call register_grant next', so an agent can tell issuing apart from registering.

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?

Guidance is largely implied through workflow sequencing: 'Call register_grant next' tells the agent the ordering but never states when this tool is the right choice versus siblings like delegate_sealing or register_statement, and gives no when-not conditions.

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