grant_skills_deleteDelete a single project grant while keeping the skill, its revisions, the target project, and other grants intact.
Deletes only this project grant. The skill, its revisions, the target project, and other grants are retained, and there are no dependency blockers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| grantID | Yes | ||
| skillID | 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, yet the description adds the genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: exactly what survives the deletion (skill, its revisions, target project, other grants) and that there are no dependency blockers. That is a precise blast-radius statement, which is the highest-value disclosure for a destructive tool.
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?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and its scope, with every clause carrying new information (scope, retained entities, no blockers). No filler.
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?
The blast radius is well covered, but for a destructive, three-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description omits parameter semantics and any note on the result of the call. Adequate but with a real gap on the ID triple.
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% across three required parameters, and the description supplies no mapping or meaning for grantID, skillID, or orgID. Phrases like 'this project grant' and 'the target project' loosely gesture at the parameters but never clarify which ID selects what, 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 ('Deletes only this project grant') and immediately delimits the blast radius, which separates it from siblings like skills_delete (deletes the skill itself) and grant_skills_add/grant_skills_list. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.
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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this revokes a skill grant from a project, but the description never says when to prefer it over skills_delete, grant_skills_add, or grant_skills_list. No explicit conditions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.