create_project_grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool issues a grant and requires ownership, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, conflicts with existing grants, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth 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 two sentences: the first states the core action and target, the second lists parameters and a requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and a requirement, but it does not mention return values, error conditions, or how the grant behaves with existing ones. Given the presence of a nested parameter (`policy`) and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a brief summary and an example for `capability`, but this adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Issue'), the resource ('per-project capability grant to a wallet'), and the specific context ('for agent/CI principals that aren't broad org members'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool `revoke_project_grant` by focusing on creation.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires you to be an owner of the project's org') and context ('for agent/CI principals'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like `add_org_member`, but the guidance is sufficient for common use.

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