grant_rights

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

destructiveHint=true already signals mutation, and the description adds the useful conflict behavior 'Returns 409 if a right is already granted.' It does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, or success response details, but the added 409 context gives some behavioral transparency beyond the annotation alone.

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 with no filler: the main action and targets come first, then the two invocation modes, then the conflict behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a six-parameter mutating tool, it covers both call shapes, all six object types, and the duplicate-grant outcome. It could add more about permissions or reversibility, but the current information is sufficient for correct invocation when combined with the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning, but the description adds conditional usage semantics: a single grant pairs Right with User or Group, while bulk uses the grants array. It also reinforces that global is a valid object type, which helps construct valid calls.

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 opens with a specific action ('Grant rights') and enumerates every target object type it applies to: queue, custom field, group, class, catalog, or global. It is clearly distinct from the sibling revoke_right by semantic polarity, though it does not name that alternative explicitly.

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 gives explicit usage modes ('Specify a single right with Right + (User or Group), or pass an array of grants for bulk operation') and lists object types. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over revoke_right or get_available_rights/list_rights; the selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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