edubase_delete_quiz_permission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows removal is irreversible. The description confirms this operation is destructive, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. For example, it doesn't disclose whether dependent objects (like quiz results) are affected, whether cascade deletion occurs, or if specific authorization (e.g., 'admin' permission) is required. The description does not contradict the annotations; thus no contradiction flag.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded (e.g., clarifying scope or side effects) without sacrificing 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?

The tool has a clear purpose, 3 required params, a known output schema (present but not described), and annotations that convey destructiveness. The description is adequate for a simple deletion tool, but it lacks any mention of the output (e.g., what the response looks like) or edge cases (e.g., removing a non-existent permission). Given the output schema exists, explaining the return value is not required, but the description still feels minimal.

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% – all three required parameters (quiz, user, permission) are described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics (e.g., what format quiz or user IDs should follow, what permission values are valid beyond the enum). Since the schema is complete and the description is brief, a baseline score 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 'Remove a user permission from a quiz' uses the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource (user permission on a quiz). It distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like edubase_post_quiz_permission (add) and edubase_get_quiz_permission (list). However, it does not clarify whether this is a soft delete, revocation, or outright removal, which would strengthen clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools for adding (edubase_post_quiz_permission) and listing permissions (edubase_get_quiz_permission), but the description does not mention these alternatives or specify prerequisites (e.g., 'user must have existing permission'). The agent must infer usage context entirely from the name and schema.

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