update_entity_permissions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is a thin safety profile for an access-control mutation. The description doesn't say whether grant/revoke are additive vs replacing, whether revocation is recoverable, or what permissions the caller needs. The role enumeration is the only extra detail, and it is more parameter than behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the role vocabulary. No filler, though the role list reads like schema material rather than description prose.

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 an access-control mutation with nested grant/revoke objects and no output schema, the definition omits the critical semantics: whether grants merge with existing permissions, what revoke exactly removes, and caller authorization requirements. The agent cannot safely invoke this from the description alone.

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 75%, so the schema already documents entityType's enum and the grant/revoke shapes. The description usefully spells out the accepted roles (AUTHOR|OWNER|CLIENT|FOLLOWER|MEMBER) that the schema only implies, but adds nothing for entityId or the user/group sub-keys.

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 pair (grant/revoke) and resource (direct permissions on an entity), which is clear. It does not differentiate from close siblings like update_entity_access or get_entity_permissions, so an agent still has to infer which one is the right entry point.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (permissions required to modify access), and no routing between this tool and update_entity_access or get_entity_permissions. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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