grant_trading_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the mutation ('mutates Officer control-plane config'), the refusal mode ('refused with loosening_refused, as it widens what can be sent'), and a safety posture ('protected and disabled by default'). It stops short of stating permission requirements or reversibility details, but the crucial guardrails are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then failure semantics, then safety posture. No repetition of the name and no wasted clauses.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers what changes, the failure mode, and the protected/disabled default; only finer details like idempotency or required caller privileges are absent.

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% and the schema already documents mutual exclusivity of account/accountGroup plus venueAccount. The description adds only the conditional context that account groups exist 'where the server offers' them, which is a minor supplement rather than new parameter semantics.

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+resource (grant access to a trading connection) and covers the alternate target (account group) explicitly. The scope ('Officer account access') distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like revoke_trading_access or set_trading_connection_enabled.

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 'where the server offers account groups' clause implies when to choose one mode over the other, and 'protected and disabled by default' hints at a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this vs. revoke_trading_access or other config tools, so usage is only implied.

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