Delete Grant

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 notes that the operation is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' but it does not state whether the deletion is irreversible, what side effects occur, or what permissions are required.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose and add one relevant behavioral note without filler. The read-only sentence is useful but terse, leaving the exact failure behavior ambiguous.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, but with no annotations and no usage guidance, a destructive operation like this needs more behavioral context. The description omits side effects, irreversibility, and when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 description's 'app-level access' phrasing adds a little context to package_name, but it does not provide parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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') and a concrete resource ('a user's app-level access'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_grant, update_grant, and delete_user by specifying the access scope, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'grant'.

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 such as update_grant or delete_user. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated; the intended use is only implied by the tool name and parameters.

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