confluence_restriction_grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool grants restrictions and returns a YAML status, but does not address side effects (e.g., overwriting existing restrictions), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error states. 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose, parameter guidance, and return format/CLI mirror. 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?

With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the return format and a key constraint (mutual exclusivity). It could mention error handling or idempotency, but is largely adequate for a simple grant tool.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the operation values and the mutual exclusivity of account_id/group. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 verb 'grant' and the resource 'restriction on a Confluence page', specifies operations 'read'/'update', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get/revoke. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that exactly one of account_id or group must be supplied, providing guidance for parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get or revoke, though the name and context imply grant-only usage.

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