Grant a runtime permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: what changes (the permissions the app holds), that revoke reverses it, and that restricted permissions still reject the shell even on stock Android.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and CLI form, then the destructive/reversal note, then the edge-case constraint. No filler.

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?

Covers the mutation, its inverse, and the main failure condition for a tool with no output schema. Return behavior is unspecified but not essential here; the description is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the `pm grant <package> <permission>` invocation, which maps the two required params to their CLI positions, plus the constraint that the permission must be a changeable runtime permission — meaningful semantics for the permission argument.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Grant a runtime permission to an app') and immediately names the reversing sibling, revoke_permission. An agent can distinguish it from the other adb tools 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 names revoke_permission as the inverse operation and states the precondition that only changeable runtime permissions work. It doesn't spell out a when-not-to-use case (e.g., when to prefer shell), but the routing context is clear.

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