jira_permissions_add_grant

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

Describes the write operation clearly, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It also warns about potential side effects (shared scheme) and specifies the return format. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the pre-check and return are clearly separated. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with high schema coverage and an output schema implied by the return description, the description covers the essential action, a key behavioral constraint, and the return format. It is complete for the agent's needs.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the return structure ({success, scheme_id, permission, holder_type}), which is not in the input schema. This provides context about expected output.

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 clearly states 'Add a permission grant to a permission scheme' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like jira_permissions_list_schemes or jira_permissions_assign_scheme by focusing on adding a grant.

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 specific prerequisite: 'Verify the scheme is not shared with other projects before modifying.' This is a useful when-to-use or when-not-to-use guideline. However, it does not explicitly compare to related sibling tools like jira_permissions_assign_scheme.

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