grant_permission

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

With no annotations, the description reveals behavior: it is a write operation blocked by readonly, non-destructive per the flag absence, and describes error behavior for empty columns list.

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 well-structured with a lead paragraph and bulleted arg list. It is slightly long but front-loaded with purpose and SQL equivalent. Efficient overall.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (9 params, no annotations, but output schema exists), the description covers all necessary details: parameter usage, error cases, and safety flags. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully explains all 9 parameters with constraints, defaults, and special behaviors (e.g., column restrictions, required schema for SCHEMA scope), adding substantial value beyond the schema.

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 'Grant permissions on a securable to a principal', provides the SQL equivalent, and the tool name and title differentiate it from siblings like deny_permission and revoke_permission.

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?

It specifies blocking by FABRIC_MCP_READONLY and that FABRIC_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE is not required, giving usage constraints. It also details parameter dependencies (e.g., schema required when scope is SCHEMA). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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