peek_grant_access

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the email side-effect, the condition under which the email is sent (page restricted and recipient lacked access), the exact return payload {slug, kind, email, notified}, and the user-approval gate. These are real operational facts an agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false / destructiveHint=false.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by effect, return shape, sibling routing and the approval caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or title.

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 4-parameter mutation with annotations present but no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline, the side effect, the approval requirement and alternative tools. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so kind, slug, email and reason are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra syntax or constraint detail for the parameters, which is acceptable but not additive; 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 ('Let a person or a Google group open a restricted Peek page') and immediately names the sibling tools it is not (peek_set_visibility, peek_list_grants). An agent can distinguish granting access from restricting a page or auditing grants without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use peek_set_visibility to restrict the page and peek_list_grants to see who already has access, and flags that user approval is required. It stops short of stating the negative case (e.g. what to do if the page is already public or the person already has access), which keeps it below a 5.

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