get_grab_operation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description confirms 'update' behavior. It adds that applied/rejected/superseded changes leave the pending set, which is useful. However, it does not detail what exactly is destroyed or the consequences of marking operations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core functionality. It efficiently lists the three operations, though the structure could be clearer (e.g., separating modes). No wasted 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?

The description covers the three main operations but lacks explanation of return values, domain-specific terms like 'durable grab change', and how the operations relate. With no output schema and moderate complexity, more completeness would help.

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%, so each parameter (mark, batch, operation_id) already has descriptions. The tool description adds overall context but does not enhance parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool can read or update a durable grab change, list legacy reorder operations, or request a unified batch. It identifies the resource and verb, distinguishing from siblings like get_grab_layers or move_grab_layer, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for using this tool over siblings, leaving the agent to infer context. The multi-mode nature would benefit from clearer usage scenarios.

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