remove_permission_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a destructive action (removes permissions) and states a precondition. However, it does not disclose potential errors, side effects, or authorization requirements, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence and a short paragraph followed by an argument list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the precondition more explicitly.

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 tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the action and precondition. It does not need to detail return values since the output schema is provided. Coverage 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats these descriptions without adding new information beyond what the schema provides. Thus, no additional semantic value is added.

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 tool removes a path from project permissions, revoking read or write permission. It specifies the resource (path) and action (remove/revoke), and distinguishes from its sibling 'add_permission_path'.

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 includes a prerequisite ('The path must have been previously added to permissions'), which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives beyond the sibling name.

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