grant_secrets_deleteDelete a single project grant to revoke a secret's access without removing the secret, its versions, target project, or other grants.
Deletes only this project grant. The secret, its versions, the target project, and other grants are retained, and there are no dependency blockers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| grantID | Yes | ||
| secretID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable detail beyond that: it specifies that only the project grant is deleted, while the secret, its versions, the target project, and other grants are retained, and that no dependency blockers exist. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context needed to safely invoke a destructive operation.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The critical deletion scope is front-loaded, followed by retention details, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and retention guarantees. It falls short only by not explaining the three required parameters, though their names are largely self-explanatory.
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 three required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of orgID, grantID, or secretID. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the agent's inference from names and patterns.
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 ('Deletes') and resource ('this project grant'), and distinguishes itself from secrets_delete by clarifying that the secret and its versions are retained. An agent can immediately tell this removes only a grant, not the underlying secret.
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 gives clear context for when to use it by stating the exact scope of deletion and what is retained, which effectively communicates when-not to use it for deleting the secret itself. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like secrets_delete or grant_secrets_add for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.