create_grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and the read-only restriction; it does not mention required permissions, reversibility, idempotency, failures, or side effects. For a mutation tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, and the read-only restriction is presented as a separate, clear note. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema and fully described parameters, so the description need not explain return values or every field. However, given the complexity of the grant object and lack of annotations, the description provides only minimal context. It is sufficient for basic invocation but omits broader behavioral and usage context, earning a middle score.

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 each parameter having a description. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents email, developer_id, and the grant object. The mention of 'app-level access' slightly reinforces the purpose of the grant body, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 clear verb ('Grant') with a specific resource ('a user app-level access'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_grant and delete_grant by focusing on granting rather than modifying or removing access.

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 implicitly states when to use the tool ('Grant a user app-level access') and provides one exclusion ('Disabled in read-only mode'), but it does not name alternative tools or elaborate on when update_grant/delete_grant might be more appropriate. This is adequate but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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