sigma_delete_workspace_grant

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

The description adds the footnote 'DESTRUCTIVE.' and 'Requires confirm=True.' The destructive nature is already declared by destructiveHint=true, but the requirement for a confirm flag is an extra behavioral detail not present in the annotations. This helps the agent understand the tool's safety guardrail.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences: the action, the destructiveness flag, and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, and there is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 destructive operation, the description covers the core action and the confirm requirement. However, it lacks context on when to use this tool versus related grant tools, what the consequences of deletion are (e.g., revoking access), and prerequisites. It is adequate but minimal, relying on the schema and annotations for additional structure.

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%, and the description only mentions 'confirm=True' in prose. The parameters workspace_id and grant_id are not described beyond their self-explanatory names; there is no guidance on their formats, where to find them, or how they relate to the operation. This is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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 a permission grant from a workspace.' It uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('permission grant from a workspace'), which distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like sigma_delete_workspace and sigma_delete_connection_path_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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool (e.g., sigma_delete_connection_path_grant) should be used. The only instruction is 'Requires confirm=True,' which is a safety requirement rather than usage context.

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