edubase_delete_user_organizations

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not add context about the destructive nature (e.g., irreversible removal, related data loss) or mention idempotency. No additional behavioral information beyond 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?

Single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. Perfect 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?

With a simple two-parameter tool, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is minimal but sufficient for basic use. However, it does not clarify the effect (e.g., whether all memberships are removed) or any constraints, so it's just adequate.

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 documented in the schema. The description adds no extra detail beyond 'organization identification strings' and 'user identification string', which mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (user from organizations), with the specific identifier type (organization identification strings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like post_user_organizations by being the delete counterpart, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 this tool is used when a user needs to be removed from organizations, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., that the user must already be a member). Context signals have no guidance.

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