Identity Grant JIT

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it confirms the destructive nature (already hinted by destructiveHint=true) and specifies required roles/scopes and audit requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the purpose, and adds prerequisites efficiently. No unnecessary words.

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 has 8 parameters, destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key requirements. It could mention the temporal nature or return values, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra explanation beyond the schema, but it is not expected to since the schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Grant' and the resource 'identity time-bound JIT access to one tool', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like identity_revoke (revoke access) and identity_rotate (rotate credentials).

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 explicitly lists prerequisites (admin role, identity:write scope, audit reason), which guides usage. It implies when to use (for temporary access) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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