remove_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a destructive action ('Remove'), it lacks details on permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, error handling (e.g., if the permission doesn't exist), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise prerequisite note. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values) and schema coverage is high, the description is somewhat complete. However, as a destructive tool with no annotations, it should include more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, reversibility) to be fully adequate, leaving clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('document_id' and 'permission_id') adequately. The description adds minimal value by noting that the permission ID comes from 'list_permissions,' but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Remove a user's access') and target resource ('to a document'), using a precise verb that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'share_document' or 'update_permission'. It explicitly identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by stating that 'The permission ID can be obtained from list_permissions,' which implies a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'update_permission' for modifying access instead of removing it), which prevents a score of 5.

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