remove_visibility_overrides

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

The description richly discloses batch semantics, dual allow/block row disambiguation, default behavior, access revocation/granting, response id alignment, and no-op on missing overrides. However, it contradicts the annotations: it describes a removal operation while destructiveHint=false, and states removing a non-existent override succeeds, which is idempotent behavior while idempotentHint=false. Per rubric, a contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and batch nature, then each paragraph covers a distinct, necessary fact: parameter semantics, consequences, response alignment, no-op behavior, and OAuth scope. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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, batch mutation tool with a sparse schema, the description covers inputs, item structure, defaults, return mapping, side effects, idempotent-like behavior, and required scope. The output schema covers the return type, so nothing essential is missing. The annotation inconsistency is already penalized under behavioral transparency.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and an untyped 'overrides' array, the description fully compensates. It explains that 'id' is the group id, that each override item uses 'published_course_id' plus 'is_visible', that 'is_visible' disambiguates allow vs block rows, and that it defaults to true. This gives an agent everything needed to construct correct parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('a group's course-visibility overrides'), and immediately identifies it as a BATCH operation. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_visibility_overrides and list_visibility_overrides, even without naming them.

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 gives clear operational context: it is a batch operation, 'id' is the group id, and the removal cannot be used to test existence, implying one should first list overrides. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative such as list_visibility_overrides, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to use it.

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