Workbooks Delete Report Grant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by disclosing the confirm gate that the schema only shows as a boolean defaulting to false, which prevents a failed call. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is reversible or who may perform it.

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 with the action first and the hard precondition second; nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the destructive profile is covered by annotations. Still, for an irreversible grant removal with undocumented IDs, the definition is thin on authorization requirements and side effects.

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 only explains the confirm flag; report_id and grant_id are left entirely to their names, with no format, ID source, or lookup guidance (e.g., via workbooks_list_report_grants).

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete a grant from a report'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like workbooks_create_report_grant or workbooks_delete_workbook_grant. The sibling differentiation is implicit via the scope in the name/description but not called out.

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 mandatory 'Requires confirm=True' condition is stated, which is genuinely needed to call it successfully. However, there is no guidance on when to revoke a grant versus other access-removal routes, and no mention of prerequisites such as ownership or admin rights.

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