revise_grant

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it replaces policy fields, requires root signing, and prohibits the agent from revising or changing the agent field. It also references issue_grant's rules, implying validation constraints. However, it does not describe outcomes or side effects such as whether fields are overwritten or if the operation is irreversible, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 concise with no wasteful sentences. It opens with the primary action, then follows with essential constraints, making it easy to parse quickly. All sentences contribute to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, no output schema), the description is missing key information. It doesn't explain the meaning of parameters like label, dry_run, or expires_at_unix, nor does it describe the return value or success feedback. The reference to issue_grant rules helps but relies on external knowledge. Overall, an agent would have difficulty confidently calling this tool without additional context.

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 covers descriptions for half of the parameters, and the description does not add meaning for the others (label, dry_run, expires_at_unix). It does not map the mentioned 'policy fields' to specific parameters, so the agent must rely on the schema for parameter details, which is incomplete for half of them. This is insufficient compensation for the 50% schema coverage.

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 states a specific operation ('Replace Grant policy fields') and differentiates from related tools by noting it cannot change the agent and shares policy rules with issue_grant. This clearly communicates the tool's role relative to its siblings.

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 usage for revising an existing grant's policy fields, contrasting with issue_grant by stating it cannot change the agent. It also notes the same policy rules apply, but does not explicitly mention when alternatives like revoke_grant or check_grant should be used. It gives enough context to select the tool for the right scenario.

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