edubase_delete_user_classes

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. It adds only the scoping detail that classes are addressed by identification strings; it does not disclose consequences such as whether user accounts remain intact or whether the removal is reversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the core action is immediately visible.

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 low-complexity operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke correctly. The main omission is usage guidance relative to the many sibling membership endpoints, which is already captured in the usage score.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters ('user identification string' and 'comma-separated list of class identification strings'), and the description's phrase 'by their class identification strings' mirrors that documentation. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('a user from classes') and specifies the input key ('class identification strings'). It is unambiguous on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like edubase_delete_class_members or edubase_post_user_classes.

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 about when to choose this tool over the related membership endpoints (e.g., edubase_delete_class_members or edubase_post_user_classes). It states only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its context from the name and sibling list.

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