beel_delete_member_grant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that only the targeted company grant is revoked and other grants remain untouched, which goes beyond the generic destructive annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action and scope, the second adds the boundary condition, and the endpoint line provides reference without fluff. 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 simple 3-parameter destructive action with strong annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally state what happens if the grant does not exist or what response is returned, but for a straightforward single-grant revocation, the provided information is sufficient.

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 input schema already fully documents all three UUID parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Revokes') and names the exact resource and scope: a MEMBER's access to one company. It also clarifies what is NOT affected (grants over other companies), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like beel_delete_member or beel_put_member_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?

The description clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: when you need to remove a member's grant for a single company while preserving their other grants. It does not explicitly name alternatives like beel_delete_member for full removal, but the scope statement effectively excludes that use case.

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