Coda Delete Permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context, namely the caveat that the principal loses access only unless covered by another permission such as domain-level. It does not mention reversibility or auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, action front-loaded, then effect, then caveat, then prerequisite. No repetition of the title and nothing extraneous.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its effect, and the prerequisite. Annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the response confirms after deletion.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by naming the source of permission_id (coda_list_permissions), which clarifies how to obtain a valid value.

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 ('Remove a permission entry from a Coda doc') plus the effect ('Revokes the specified permission'). An agent can distinguish this from coda_add_permission and coda_list_permissions without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and routing hint: 'Get the permission_id from coda_list_permissions first,' pointing at the sibling that produces the required ID. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer changing a permission level over deleting it), so it stops short of a 5.

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