sigma_delete_connection_path_grant

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

The annotations already signal destructive behavior, but the description adds the important confirmation requirement ('Requires confirm=True'), which is not present in annotations. It reinforces the destructive nature with 'DESTRUCTIVE' in caps, giving the agent a clear warning. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: one sentence plus a warning. It front-loads the core action ('Delete a grant from a connection path') and then highlights the destructive nature and confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant information.

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 delete operation with 3 parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it deletes and the requirement for confirmation. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It does not mention prerequisites like permissions or whether the grant must exist, but these are less critical given the explicit confirmation flag. The tool is fairly complete for its 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that 'confirm=True' is required and by implicitly mapping 'connection path' to connection_path_id and 'grant' to grant_id. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or explain the default of confirm=false, leaving some ambiguity about whether confirm must be set to true for deletion to proceed. The parameter names themselves are self-descriptive, but the description could be more explicit.

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) and the resource (a grant from a connection path), making it distinct from sibling tools like sigma_add_connection_grant or sigma_delete_workspace_grant. The verb 'delete' plus target 'grant' and context 'connection path' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: deleting a grant from a connection path. It also gives a critical usage condition ('Requires confirm=True'), which is essential for successful invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on the name to differentiate from related grant-management tools.

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