add_entitlement

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the no-op default call, the exact blast_radius contents, the refusal condition when entitlements can't be read, and that actions are audited. Nothing contradicts the idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with tag, purpose, workflow, then guardrail; most sentences earn their place. The 'do not set confirm=True on your own' sentence is slightly redundant with the following clause, but the emphasis is warranted for a destructive-adjacent workflow.

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 no output schema, the description still explains what the default call returns (blast_radius: pool identity, existing vs new principals), the failure mode, and the audit trail. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely and interpret the result.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning to confirm by framing it as the deliberate second step in a reviewed workflow, which is more than the schema's terse 'True grants'.

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?

Opens with a bracketed [WRITE] tag plus a specific verb and resource ('Grant desktop-pool access to AD user/group SID(s)'), immediately distinguishing it from remove_entitlement and the read-only list_* siblings. An agent knows exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search_ad_users for SIDs and to the two-phase workflow (bare call = blast radius, confirm=True = grant). It also names a when-not condition ('do not set confirm=True on your own... they have not seen the blast radius yet') and the refusal case, which is unusually complete guidance.

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