update_grant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool is disabled in read-only mode and says nothing about permission requirements, partial-update semantics, side effects, or what happens if the grant does not exist.

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 with no filler. 'Update a user's app-level access' is front-loaded and clear, and 'Disabled in read-only mode' adds one essential operational warning without redundancy.

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?

Although the schema and output schema are rich, the free-text description does not explain when to use the tool, how update_mask works, or what effects updating a grant has on the user's access. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all five required parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents the semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'a user's app-level access,' clearly conveying that this tool modifies an existing grant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_grant or update_user, but the resource phrase is specific enough to imply the difference.

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 such as create_grant, delete_grant, or update_user. The only operational hint is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a restriction, not a usage guideline for selecting this tool.

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