yd_metrika_grant_update

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as idempotency, effect on existing grants, or required permissions. It simply states 'update' without elaboration.

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 extremely brief at three words, but it is correctly front-loaded. While concise, it sacrifices some clarity; a slightly longer sentence would improve understanding without losing brevity.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention that the grant must already exist, what happens on failure, or any additional context about the counter or user.

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% with parameter descriptions that are functional but minimal (e.g., 'New permission: view or edit'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 and resource: 'Update access grant'. While it doesn't explicitly mention Yandex Metrika, the tool name and schema parameters imply the context, making the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (yd_metrika_grant_add, yd_metrika_grant_delete, yd_metrika_grants_get). The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios for updating a grant.

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