Remove group from ticket

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the link-removal framing and ID provenance, but says nothing about whether the ticket or group itself survives, permissions required, or audit consequences beyond what the schema already notes for 'reason'.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste; the operation is front-loaded and the ID-provenance hint is attached to the parameter it concerns. Nothing redundant is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a two-parameter destructive link-removal with annotation-covered safety, this is nearly complete, though a note on consequences (e.g., that only the association is removed, not the group) would close the remaining gap.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema (including the audit-trail purpose of 'reason'). The description only clarifies where groupTicketId comes from, so the baseline 3 applies — schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a group-ticket link') and names the identifier type used to locate it. This clearly distinguishes it from glpi_add_ticket_group and glpi_delete_ticket_user without needing to open the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required ID ('get the ID from glpi_list_ticket_groups'), which is genuine routing guidance. It does not state when-not to use this tool or what happens to the underlying ticket/group entities, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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