grant_privileges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a security-sensitive mutation. It does not disclose that this alters access control, what permissions are needed to run it, whether the change is reversible, or how privileges interact with existing grants or withGrantOption.

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?

A single short sentence is efficient in word count but is badly under-sized for a seven-parameter, security-critical mutation. There is no structure or front-loading of the information an agent actually needs before invoking it.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive security operation, a one-line description is far from complete. The agent lacks permission requirements, scope semantics (database/table wildcards), and any indication of reversibility or side effects.

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 seven parameters (including host, table, database, privileges, and withGrantOption) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Concede privilégios a um usuário'), which is clear. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as revoke_privileges, show_grants, or list_privileges, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. required admin/GRANT authority), and no routing to alternatives like revoke_privileges or show_grants. The agent is left to infer everything about placement in a workflow.

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