tb_grant

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that grants are 'attenuated' (restricted) and 'expiring' (time-limited), and that they require exact negotiation. This helps the agent understand the nature of the operation, though it does not disclose all side effects or error conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose and a key requirement without wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (8 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks essential context about the negotiation protocol, the meaning of the capability object, the purpose of expectedBoardRevision, or what the return value looks like. Without an output schema, the description should fulfill this role, but it does not.

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%, leaving the description to explain parameter meaning. However, the description provides no information about the eight required parameters, their roles, or how to construct them (e.g., capability, expectedBoardRevision, resource). The schema itself is self-descriptive with names but lacks contextual meaning, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 the action ('Create') and the specific resource ('task-authority grant') with distinguishing attributes ('attenuated, expiring'). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like tb_approve or tb_handoff by focusing on grant creation with limited scope and duration.

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 implies usage for creating temporary, restricted grants and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires exact task-authority@1.0.0 negotiation'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no direct comparison with sibling tools or clear exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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