delete_grant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It only says the operation 'Removes' a user's access and is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it requires special permissions, or what side effects occur beyond access removal.

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 two short sentences: it front-loads the core purpose and then adds a meaningful operational warning. Every sentence contributes, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool has a simple schema and an output schema, so parameter context is well covered. However, context around destructive behavior, permission implications, and what the deletion really changes within the app is missing, leaving the description complete only at a high level.

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 fully describes all three parameters, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies a distinct resource ('a user's app-level access'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose and differentiates it from similar sibling tools like delete_user or delete_in_app_product. The phrasing matches the semantic of deleting a grant rather than deleting a product or user.

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 clearly states the operation and adds an explicit limitation: 'Disabled in read-only mode.' It does not name alternatives such as create_grant or update_grant, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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