grant_entitlement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic action and provides no information about side effects, reversibility (though revoke_entitlement exists), idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the user already has the entitlement. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and key object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description is too minimal to understand the complete behavior: it does not mention return values, error cases, idempotency, or preconditions. Given the complexity (3 parameters, enum), the description should offer more operational 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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, with clear descriptions for app_user_id, entitlement_id, and duration (including an enum). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource ('promotional entitlement') and target ('to a user'), plus a scope ('for a specified duration'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like revoke_entitlement, check_entitlement, and get_offerings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the phrase 'promotional entitlement' implies a certain use case, the description does not mention exceptions, prerequisites, or explicitly contrast with revoke_entitlement or other sibling tools.

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