Eliminar permiso(s)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that permissions are deleted, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, cascades to children, requires specific permissions, or what happens to associated data. The 'children' mode is ambiguous – it does not clarify if deleting a group deletes its children recursively. This is a significant gap for 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the accepted input forms. There is no extraneous information, and it is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the behavior when deleting a group with children, the side effects of deletion, or the expected response. For a destructive operation without annotation coverage, this is a major omission.

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 schema already provides descriptions for id, ids, and children, covering 75% of parameters. The description adds value by explicitly explaining the semantic difference: id for a single permission, ids for multiple, children for a group. However, the 'extra' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description. The description offers moderate additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Elimina permisos' – delete permissions) and the resource. It also lists the three input modes (id, ids, children), making the tool's scope evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_role or delete_scope, though the name already does that.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when to use each parameter mode. It merely says 'Puede recibir' (can receive) without stating conditions or context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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