works_perm_grant

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

The description discloses the safety requirement 'Requires confirm=true' and clarifies the two scope modes. But with no annotations, it does not mention whether the grant is additive, if existing permissions are overwritten, or what the response looks like, leaving room for ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes the critical confirm requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should be more comprehensive. It covers the action and the confirm flag but omits side effects, return value, and idempotency, leaving the agent with partial understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description helps interpret key parameters: folder_id (folder-level), perm_type (READ/WRITE), and confirm (must be true). However, it does not explain user, sharedrive_id, or target_email beyond their obvious meanings, so it partially compensates.

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' and identifies the resource as 'READ/WRITE to a member', clearly distinguishing drive-level vs folder-level scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like works_perm_revoke and works_perms_list.

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?

It clearly implies the use case: granting permissions to a member, with the optional folder_id for folder-level grants. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stays at clear context without exclusions.

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