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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it specifies the exact blast radius (only the grant is removed) and what survives (secret, its versions, target project, other grants), and rules out dependency blockers. This is the kind of destructive-operation detail an agent needs before calling a delete that annotations alone (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) cannot convey.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the object and immediately qualified by scope and retention. Zero 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?

For a destructive 3-param delete with no output schema, the description covers scope, retention, and absence of blockers, which is nearly all an agent needs. A note on authorization/permissions would make it fully complete.

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% with each of the three IDs documented, including format patterns, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., cross-org semantics), so 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 (Deletes) and resource (project grant), and the word 'only' plus the enumeration of what is retained (secret, versions, target project, other grants) distinguishes it from grant_secrets_add/list and secrets_delete. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description gives clear context for the operation by clarifying scoping (deletes only the grant) and confirming there are no blockers, implying it is safe to invoke without dependency resolution. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over revoking access another way, but the implied usage is unambiguous.

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