grant_discharge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the full outcome set ('discharged | refused | uncertain | expired with a reason') and major invariants ('Cannot mint; cannot run anything the host did not register'), which is substantially more transparent than typical mutation tools.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, return values are enumerated, and hard constraints are stated. Every sentence adds information an agent needs to decide whether and how to call the tool.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the outcome vocabulary, the precondition, and the tool's boundaries. It is adequate for a small 4-parameter tool, though it does not explicitly describe error or not-found behavior.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that executor must be a registered name and links type/id to a recorded decision, but it does not add meaningful format or value-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('carry out'), a specific resource ('the decision a human already recorded for this object'), and the mechanism ('executor the host registered by name'). It also distinguishes the tool from status/list siblings by enumerating possible return statuses and stating 'Cannot mint.'

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 usage context is clear: this tool executes an already-recorded human decision through a registered executor. It also gives explicit exclusions ('Cannot mint; cannot run anything the host did not register'), but it does not explicitly point to sibling tools such as grant_status or ledger_tail as alternatives.

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