ghl_project_delete_list_user

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

Beyond the annotations, it adds concrete impact boundaries: only the direct grant is revoked, inherited ancestor access is unchanged, isPrivate is untouched, and the operation is idempotent. It also lists the endpoint and OAuth scope, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 tool-specific definition is buried behind a long preamble about unrelated API details such as task batch-get behavior, lexorank positions, recurring tasks, and task search. The relevant portion is concise, but the overall structure is not front-loaded and includes substantial irrelevant material.

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 definition covers the mutation's impact, idempotency, scope, endpoint, and OAuth scope, which is strong for a destructive delete tool with no output schema. It does not describe the success response shape or status code, but otherwise gives enough context to call the tool safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, so listId, userId, and locationId are already documented in the schema. The description only shows the endpoint path and adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Revokes a direct user grant on the list.' It distinguishes the action from privacy changes and inherited access, so an agent can understand exactly what is being revoked 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 clear scoping context: this affects only a direct grant, is idempotent if absent, and does not change isPrivate or inherited access. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state a direct when-to-use versus when-not condition.

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