forcepoint_group_remove_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is mutating and explains the authorizationKey requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, failure behavior, or whether group existence is required, leaving significant gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick consumption.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more context about expected responses, error handling, and operational side effects. The basic purpose is clear, but an agent would need to infer or guess about return formats and failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions authorizationKey, leaving groupname, companyemail, and userId unexplained. While their names imply meaning, the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 operation ('Remove users from a Forcepoint group'), specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'forcepoint_group_add_members' by focusing on removal rather than addition.

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 notes it is mutating and mentions the authorizationKey requirement when admin auth is enabled, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use this only when you need to remove members, not add them').

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