remove_group_memberships

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, non-readOnly), the description reveals that the API reports 'deleted' even for non-members, so it cannot be used to probe membership, and warns of the side effect of revoking course access while preserving enrollments/progress. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.

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 well structured: action sentence first, then parameter mapping, idempotency note, side-effect warning, and auth scope. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler, using paragraph breaks for scannability.

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 batch mutation with side effects and zero parameter descriptions in the schema, this description covers the required OAuth scope, idempotent behavior, side effects on course access, and param meanings. An output schema exists, so the return-value format need not be spelled out; nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, but the description maps 'id' to the group and 'student_ids' to 'obfuscated learner ids', which provides the essential meaning that the bare schema titles lack. It does not go into format constraints or edge cases (e.g., empty arrays), so a 4 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove learners from a student group.' It further specifies 'BATCH operation' and explains the two parameters, making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_group_memberships.

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 provides clear context by noting this is a batch operation, idempotent, and can revoke course access via visibility overrides; however, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., add_group_memberships) or state when-not conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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