Share or revoke profile access

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the requirement that all permission flags must be true when action is 'remove'. This non-obvious API quirk is exactly the kind of transparency that helps agents avoid mistakes. It doesn't cover every side effect, but the openWorldHint is supplemented with a concrete caveat.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides a necessary caveat without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has no output schema and is a mutation, but the description covers the core behavior well, including the crucial action='remove' nuance. It lacks information about return values, whether calls are additive or replacing, or prerequisite permissions, but the openWorldHint and non-destructive annotation mitigate some of that. Given the tool's relative simplicity, this is adequately complete.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 'ids' and 'users' (and 'usage' within the user object), yielding 67% coverage. The description enriches the 'action' parameter semantics by explaining the special meaning of 'remove' and the flag condition. This goes beyond the schema's enum to clarify real-world behavior, but it doesn't explain the individual permission flags (view/share/delete/update) beyond what the schema gives.

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 uses a specific verb ('Grant or revoke') directly tied to a resource ('per-user permissions across one or more profiles'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling profile tools by focusing on permission management rather than profile properties, creation, or transfer.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when granting or revoking profile access) by stating its exact function, and it provides a critical usage rule for the 'remove' action. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest score.

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