jfrog_delete_permission_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether this affects associated artifacts), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address critical aspects like required permissions, potential impacts, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use in a complex environment with sibling tools.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('name' and 'resourceType'), including an enum for 'resourceType'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 target ('a specific resource type from a permission target'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jfrog_delete_permission_target' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes deleting a resource type versus the entire target or replacing resources.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'jfrog_delete_permission_target' (for deleting the entire target) or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource' (for updating resources), leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools.

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