goclaw_skill_grant_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'grant access' which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflict (e.g., if agent already has access), rate limits, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level but not enough for reliable invocation.

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 ('skill_id' and 'agent_id') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, where to find IDs, validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 a skill') with a specific target ('an agent'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'goclaw_skill_grant_user' which grants to users instead of agents. However, it doesn't specify what 'access' entails (e.g., read, execute, modify) or differentiate from other agent-skill tools that might exist.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., agent and skill must exist), when not to use it (e.g., if agent already has access), or refer to related tools like 'goclaw_skill_list' to find skill IDs or 'goclaw_agent_list' for agent IDs. The context is implied but not explicit.

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