delete_resource_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the effect of revoking resource-based grants, but does not discuss side effects on existing access, whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or behavior when no policy exists.

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 only a few sentences, front-loads the usage signal, and keeps the argument documentation compact. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter deletion tool, the core decision context is present: when to call it, what it does, and which resource it acts on. Without annotations or an output schema, it could still mention expected behavior on missing policy or return value, but these are minor for this simplicity.

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?

The schema has no description for resource_arn and coverage is 0%. The description only adds 'Key ARN,' which clarifies the resource type but does not explain ARN format, constraints, or required ownership. This is minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 states the specific operation: 'Remove the resource policy from a key.' It also ties the tool to a clear use case ('revoking all cross-account or resource-based access grants'), which separates it from sibling put/get_resource_policy tools.

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 opening 'Call this when revoking all cross-account or resource-based access grants on a key' provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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