remove_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'revoke', implying mutation, but discloses nothing about permissions required, whether revocation is reversible, cascade effects on inherited permissions, or error behavior for nonexistent ids. Only the minimum is covered.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste. The prerequisite pointer is front-loaded and every clause 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?

Given the 0% schema coverage and absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the permission_id source but omits file_id context, mutation consequences, and any output/pagination information. It leaves the agent with gaps for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that permission_id comes from list_permissions, adding real meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, file_id is never mentioned in the description, leaving its semantics entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb+resource ('Revoke a specific permission') with the identifier used. It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like list_permissions, though it does not explicitly contrast with other write tools such as share_file which are related (both affect permissions).

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite for the permission_id by directing the agent to list_permissions to obtain ids. It doesn't state when not to use it (e.g., versus share_file for modifying permissions), but the prerequisite is concrete and actionable.

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