edubase_delete_organization_department

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: members are left without a department, lose permissions and competencies, and sub-departments are moved one level up. This goes beyond the annotations and is critical for an agent to understand the destructive consequences before invoking the tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause adds value, particularly the side-effect details.

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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential consequences. It does not mention reversibility, error behavior if the department is not found, or required permissions, but these are partially covered by annotations and not strictly necessary. A small gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove department from an organization.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_organization (removes whole org) and delete_organization_members (removes members) by naming the department as the target. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one wants to remove a department, and the side effects provide context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_organization or patch_organization_department, nor does it offer exclusions. The usage context is clear but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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