security-remove-role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether removal is irreversible, what happens to existing role members or assigned ACLs, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding and the verb-resource pair front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotation detail beyond the destructive hint. The description should say what happens on success/failure, whether member assignments are affected, and any prerequisite permissions; none of that is present, leaving the agent to call it blind.

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 the single 'identity' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the accepted path form. The description adds no format, resolution, or error-handling detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Removes a Sitecore role'), so an agent can tell it apart from security-new-role or security-remove-role-member by name. However, it makes no explicit differentiation from those siblings in the text, and gives no scope detail (e.g. whether removal is permanent or path-based).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as security-remove-role-member (which removes a member from a role, not the role itself) or security-remove-user. An agent must infer the distinction purely from the tool names.

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