Remove a user assignment from the SCF Controls Platform using its assignment UUID. Use this destructive action to revoke access or correct an erroneous assignment.
Remove a user assignment (destructive write — editor role).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignment_id | Yes | Assignment UUID — from scf_list_assignments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It explicitly flags the operation as destructive and states the required editor role, adding auth context beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations. It does not describe side effects or reversibility, but the role and destructive label are valuable.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the action and packs the destructive nature and role requirement into a parenthetical. No filler or repetition.
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 one well-documented parameter, destructiveHint annotation, and a clear purpose plus role, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by naming deletion alternatives, but the schema and sibling list partially cover that.
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%: assignment_id has format, pattern, and a description pointing to scf_list_assignments. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clarifies the resource as a user assignment, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scf_delete_team_assignment. The destructive-write label reinforces the mutation nature.
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 the tool is for removing a user assignment, and the editor-role note states a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over scf_delete_team_assignment or other delete tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.