remove_role_from_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation (removing a role), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, effects on the member, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in French, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and output expectations. For a role-removal operation, more information on permissions, effects, and error handling would be needed for adequate completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'userId' (ID du membre) and 'roleId' (ID du rôle à retirer). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Retire un rôle d'un membre' clearly states the action (retire/remove) and the target (a role from a member) in French. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_role_to_member' or 'delete_role' beyond the verb choice. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling comparison.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for managing user permissions or part of a workflow. With siblings like 'add_role_to_member' and 'delete_role', there's no indication of when removal is appropriate over deletion or other actions.

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