workspace_delete_workspace_grantDelete a permission grant from a Sigma workspace, revoking access for a user or team. Requires confirm=True to prevent accidental removal.
Delete a permission grant from a workspace. DESTRUCTIVE. Requires confirm=True.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| grant_id | Yes | ||
| workspace_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so 'DESTRUCTIVE' is a restatement that earns no credit. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the confirm=True precondition. It does not explain what happens when confirm is omitted or false, nor whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two facts an agent needs to avoid an error. No filler.
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. However, for a destructive grant-revocation tool the description omits prerequisites (admin/permission requirements), the source of grant_id, and the behavior when confirm is false, leaving gaps an agent would have to discover by trial.
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 carries the full burden for three parameters. It partially explains confirm (must be true to proceed) but says nothing about workspace_id or grant_id, including where grant_id comes from. Two of three parameters remain 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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete a permission grant from a workspace.' An agent can immediately tell this removes a grant rather than listing or creating one. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as workspace_grant_workspace_access or workspace_list_workspace_grants, but the resource is 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. It does not tell the agent to first call workspace_list_workspace_grants to obtain a grant_id, nor does it describe the effect of revoking access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.