team_grant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the mutation mechanism, the authorization requirement, and the asynchronous consequence that "The grantee unwraps it on their next sync pull," plus the role default. It does not say what happens if the principal is already a member (idempotency/overwrite) or point at team_revoke for reversal.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its mechanism before the preconditions. Each sentence adds a distinct fact (mechanism, propagation timing, auth, role default).

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers inputs, auth, and timing adequately for correct invocation. The remaining gap is failure/duplicate handling and the revocation path, which matter for a security-sensitive grant operation.

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%, so joinKey and label are already fully documented, including the note that label is never serialized. The description's only parameter claim, that role "sets the grantee's access level (default: member)," restates the schema enum description rather than adding new meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Admit a principal to the team") plus the mechanism (wrapping the current team DEK to their x25519 public key), which is enough to distinguish it from a plain read like team_members. It never names a sibling such as team_join (the grantee side) or team_role_set (changing an existing member's role), so the discrimination is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is clear and a real prerequisite is stated: "Requires the caller to hold at least admin role," which prevents a whole class of failed calls. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use team_role_set for existing members, team_join if you are the joining party), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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