edubase_delete_content_permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with them (no contradiction). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — it doesn't disclose reversibility (re-adding via post_content_permission), behavior when the permission doesn't exist (despite idempotentHint), or downstream effects of revoking a user's access.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and object come first, followed by the content-type list. The enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema enum, which keeps it from a 5, but 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 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and safety-relevant annotations, parameter-level completeness is satisfied. The residual gaps are operational: no statement about what happens when the last permission is removed, whether removal is reversible, or any caveats about permission hierarchy. Adequate but with clear behavioral gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The prose enumeration of content types mirrors the schema's type enum and adds no format or syntax details beyond it. The 'finances only for events' caveat is already in the schema's permission property, so the description contributes nothing beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Remove') with a specific resource ('a permission level of a user from a content') and enumerates all ten supported content types. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools edubase_post_content_permission and edubase_get_content_permission by verb and direction of operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the post/get permission siblings, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., whether the permission must currently exist, or whether removal is the right operation versus downgrading a permission). The only usage signal is the verb in the name and description.

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