edubase_delete_event_permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds nothing beyond the literal 'remove'. It does not clarify that the user must still be attached to the event, whether the operation fails if the permission doesn't exist, or if there are cascading effects. The description fails to add behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence with no waste. It is appropriately front-loaded for quick scanning. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note on effect or prerequisites without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of a 3-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks guidance on error handling or preconditions. It does not explain the return value (if any) beyond what the output schema might convey, but that is acceptable with an output schema present.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters: event, user, and permission. The description simply repeats the title and does not add any usage notes on parameter constraints (e.g., whether user must be an ID string versus email). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the object ('a user permission from an event'), using a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes this as a deletion tool among the many permission siblings (e.g., edubase_get_event_permission, edubase_post_event_permission), it could be more precise by noting it removes a specific permission record, not the user from the event entirely.

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 versus alternatives like edubase_post_event_transfer or other permission delete tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin or grant permission) or when a user should have no remaining permissions, leaving the agent without use-case context.

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