remove_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about the required permissions (typically Manage Roles), whether the action is reversible, or what happens on failure. 'Remove' implies mutation but no behavioral detail is disclosed.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though almost too terse to be maximally useful.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits permission requirements, failure modes, and audit implications. The one-liner is insufficient context for an agent to call this safely.

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% and all four parameters (userId, roleId, reason, guildId) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 states a specific verb (Remove) and resource (a role from a user in the server), which is enough to separate it from assign_role, delete_role, and edit_role in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope limits (e.g., single user, single role).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus assign_role or delete_role, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should not be called. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name and one-line description.

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