mgmt_public_grant_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete public grant' without mentioning side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or consequences. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it includes an unexplained URL that may confuse or mislead an agent. The phrase 'Delete public grant' is clear, but the URL adds noise without value. Overall, it is efficient but not optimally structured.

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 simple delete tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sparse. It lacks context about what a public grant is, how it differs from other grants, and any error handling or edge cases. With no annotations, this is inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema describes both parameters (counterId and pretty) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action 'Delete public grant', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling mgmt_grant_delete by specifying 'public' grant, so an agent can tell it apart. However, it does not explain what constitutes a public grant, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mgmt_grant_delete or mgmt_public_grant_create. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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