Delete project model grant

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that the grant is live policy, that new launches lose model selection, that running agents lose access on their next call, that the model itself is retained, and that there are no dependency blockers. That is exactly the impact detail an agent needs before an irreversible action.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediate consequence, then impact and safety caveats. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, reversibility implications, and the absence of blockers well. The only real gap is the complete silence on the three required identifiers, which an agent must derive from the schema alone.

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 0% and all three parameters (orgID, projectID, modelGrantID) are opaque patterned IDs documented nowhere. The description never mentions how the grant is identified or how org/project scoping interacts, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Removes the project's access to the configured model") and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling grant_models_add, grant_models_edit and grant_models_list. The title reinforces the scope without merely restating it.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive effect, but there is no explicit routing guidance versus grant_models_edit (which presumably alters rather than removes a grant) or grant_models_list. No preconditions or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when revocation is the right call.

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