acc_remove_folder_permissions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: it removes only DIRECT permissions, inherited ones persist, project admins are protected, and user confirmation is required. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the exact scope and limitations of the destructive action, helping the agent anticipate outcomes and handle edge cases.

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 tight and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by two sentences that address scope and constraints. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity, an output schema exists, and annotations cover destructiveness, the description provides comprehensive context: what the tool does, what it doesn't do (inherited permissions), its limits (project admins), and a required user confirmation step. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it appropriately without needing to inspect the output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage: folder_id is 'Folder URN', project_id is 'Project id', and subjects_json explains the JSON array format with an example. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but with high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the action: 'Remove all DIRECT permissions of the given subjects on a folder.' It specifies the resource (folder), the subject scope (given subjects), and the permission scope (DIRECT), distinguishing it from sibling tools like acc_set_folder_permissions or acc_get_folder_permissions. The distinction between direct and inherited permissions further clarifies its unique role.

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 provides explicit usage context: it notes that inherited permissions are not affected and instructs to remove them at the parent if full revocation is needed. It also states an exclusion ('Project admins cannot be removed') and mandates user confirmation. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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