Grant Permission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says a grant occurs, but does not state whether the grant persists, whether it requires special device privileges, whether it can fail for undeclared permissions, or what side effects occur. It discloses only the basic mutation target.

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 redundant clauses. It is appropriately terse for a simple grant action, though the brevity contributes to the missing guidance elsewhere.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the lack of device-parameter mention and prerequisite behavior leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for the permission parameter by giving the android.permission.* format and implies the package parameter via 'to an app', but it completely omits the optional device parameter and any package format details.

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 verb (Grant) and resource (runtime permission) and scopes it to an app via the android.permission.* format. It clearly distinguishes itself from the related request_screen_capture_permission tool, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as request_screen_capture_permission or general app-management siblings. The description gives no prerequisites, no when-not conditions, and no indication of required state (e.g., app must be installed, permission must be declared).

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