Coda Delete Permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the principal loses access unless covered by another permission such as domain-level, which helps the agent predict consequences.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by two short sentences on effect and prerequisite. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains for the agent (action, prerequisite, side effect) is fully stated.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the provenance of permission_id ('from coda_list_permissions'). The description largely repeats this, adding little beyond the baseline for a fully-covered 2-param tool.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Remove a permission entry from a Coda doc') that is clearly distinct from siblings like coda_add_permission and coda_list_permissions. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Get the permission_id from coda_list_permissions first') and states the effect on the principal. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context for correct invocation is well established.

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