tc_remove_permissions

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

While annotations already mark as destructive/write, the description adds valuable behavioral context: removal removes entries entirely, fallback to parent grants, and the confirm safety gate. It does not mention irreversibility explicitly but the destructive hint covers that.

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?

Highly structured and efficient: opening sentence gives the core action, followed by behavior notes, args list, and return format. Every sentence adds value with no 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 5 parameters, annotations, and no formal output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, alternatives, parameter meanings, and return shape, leaving little ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It names every parameter with a brief meaning, adds that confirm is a safety gate, and clarifies item_type defaults. This goes beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 users/groups from an ACL entirely, with specific scope (folder/file). It distinguishes from related tools by explicitly naming tc_grant_permissions as the alternative for blocking access.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: explains fallback behavior, names alternative for blocking, and states the hard requirements (TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1 and confirm=true). This gives the agent clear decision-making guidance.

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