noetic.grant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reveal two behavioral constraints: owner governance and narrowing-only grants. However, it does not state whether the grant is additive, reversible, or how persistenceMode affects existing state, leaving key side effects implicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It communicates the core action and constraints economically.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no per-field descriptions, one sentence is not enough to fully specify correct invocation. The description gives the gist but leaves worldMutation, sessionId, persistenceMode semantics, and return/error behavior unstated.

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 description adds some meaning by mapping 'principal' to subjectPrincipal, 'space' to resource, and mentioning rights and persistence mode. It does not explain sessionId, worldMutation, or the exact shape of the rights array, so agents must infer much of the parameter contract.

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 (Grant) with a recipient (principal), object (scoped rights + persistence mode), and target (a space), and the parenthetical constraints distinguish it from siblings like noetic.revoke and noetic.check_rights.

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?

It gives clear context by stating that grants are owner-governed and narrowing-only, so an agent knows who may invoke it and what constraints apply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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