edubase_delete_organization_department

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: members lose department-granted permissions and competencies, custom permissions are retained, and child departments move up one level. These cascading effects are exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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 action in the first sentence and follows immediately with the relevant consequences. It is compact despite covering multiple important side effects, with no wasted text.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the major cascade effects: member permissions, competencies, and child department movement. It does not mention authentication requirements, failure behavior, or return values, but the annotations already signal destructiveness and the lack of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove department from an organization.' It clearly targets a department within an organization rather than the organization itself. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as patch_organization_department or delete_organization.

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 this tool should be used versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The deletion context is implied by 'Remove', but no explicit usage rules are provided.

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