delete_permission

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

The description's 'Revoke' aligns with the destructiveHint annotation, and the parameter hints (e.g., target_type values) provide useful context. It doesn't mention reversibility or side effects, but given the annotations already convey destructiveness, the description is sufficiently transparent. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise: a single clear action sentence followed by a compact parameter hint block. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 description covers the essential action and provides enough parameter context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. An output schema is noted in context signals, so return values are presumably specified elsewhere. The lack of examples or edge-case notes is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description compensates for two of four parameters (workspace_id and target_type) by giving explicit guidance. However, user_id and target_id are left undefined, though their names and the action phrase 'a user has on a target' make them inferable. This partial coverage meets the baseline but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('all permissions a user has on a target'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `give_permission` and the `can_*` check operations.

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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to choose this tool over others (e.g., `give_permission` to reverse an assignment). It does provide some parameter guidance (workspace_id and target_type), but no direct 'use this when' instruction. The context signals show no usage directives in annotations, so this is a moderate gap.

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