goclaw_mcp_server_grant_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states it's a grant operation (implying a write/mutation), but doesn't disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a permission-modifying tool, this leaves critical gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded and doesn't contain unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a permission-granting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'access' entails, the response format, error handling, or security implications. Given the complexity of access control operations, more context is needed for safe use.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of IDs, where to find them, or validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Grant') and resource ('access to an MCP server'), specifying it's for a user. It distinguishes from sibling 'goclaw_mcp_server_grant_agent' by targeting users instead of agents, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other permission-related tools like 'goclaw_skill_grant_user'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must exist, user must be valid), nor does it clarify what type of access is granted or how this differs from similar tools like 'goclaw_skill_grant_user' or 'goclaw_agent_share'.

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