edubase_delete_course_permission

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true (confirms mutation), readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds nothing beyond "Remove a user permission from a course." The annotation about idempotentHint=true is somewhat surprising for a delete operation, but the description does not clarify or contradict it. No additional behavioral details (e.g., what happens if permission doesn't exist, whether it returns an error or silently succeeds) are provided. This is adequate given annotation coverage but not exemplary.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It is extremely concise while still conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a delete operation with well-documented schema parameters.

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 has 3 required parameters (all documented in schema), an output schema (which reduces the burden to explain return values), and annotation-rich context, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks any edge-case behavior (e.g., removing the last admin permission from a course, or deleting a non-existent permission). The presence of many sibling permission tools (get/post/delete for various entities) makes the absence of differentiation a gap.

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% – every parameter (user, course, permission) has a description in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating the operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters well, though the description could explain how permission removal differs or any ordering assumptions.

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 "Remove a user permission from a course", which is a clear verb+resource that specifies exactly what is removed (a user permission) and from where (a course). Among siblings like edubase_get_course_permission and edubase_post_course_permission, this delete variant is sufficiently distinct, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other permission delete tools like edubase_delete_class_permission or edubase_delete_quiz_permission.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., edubase_post_course_permission to add, edubase_delete_class_permission for class-level removal). It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether the user must already have the specific permission, or when it is safe to call (e.g., only if the user has 'grant' authority). There are no exclusions or explicit usage conditions.

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