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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond them: an explicit blast radius (skill, revisions, target project and other grants are retained) and the guarantee of "no dependency blockers", which tells the agent the call should succeed cleanly.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded in the first clause. 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?

With rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description only needs to convey scope and side effects, which it does. It does not address failure modes (e.g. grant not found) but no output schema exists, so return-value coverage is not required.

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% and each of the three required IDs carries its own format pattern and description. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 ("Deletes") and a narrowly scoped resource ("only this project grant"), which implicitly distinguishes it from skills_delete by making clear the skill itself is untouched. It stops short of naming grant_skills_add or grant_skills_list, so the routing is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions), and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the scope constraint that the skill and other grants survive, which an agent must interpret on its own.

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