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 genuinely new context beyond them: dependent processes are stopped as a side effect, the machine resource survives, and there are no dependency blockers preventing the delete. It stops short of noting permissions requirements or reversibility.

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, no filler, with the primary action stated first and consequences following. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive three-ID delete with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers what is destroyed, what is preserved, and the side effects. No output schema exists and none is needed; only auth/permission expectations are absent.

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% with clear patterns for grantID, orgID, and projectID, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Removes the project's access to the machine') and immediately disambiguates from the adjacent machines_delete by noting 'The machine itself is retained.' An agent can distinguish this from grant_machines_add/list and machines_delete without opening any 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?

The purpose implies the usage context (revoking a project's machine grant), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many grant_* and machines_* siblings. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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