remove_from_structure_group

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'remove.' It adds useful context by clarifying the operation targets group membership rather than the group itself or the underlying nodes/elements. However, it does not disclose what happens if the group does not exist, if both node_ids and element_ids are omitted, or whether the operation fails silently.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean Args list. The bilingual text adds some length but is not wasteful and helps clarify meaning. Every component contributes value, though the Chinese repetition slightly increases verbosity without adding new information.

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 utility with no output schema and sparse input schema, the description covers the operation and parameters well. However, it omits important usage constraints such as needing at least one ID list, behavior when no IDs are supplied, and whether the group must already exist. These gaps make the definition functional but not fully complete for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides no descriptions and leaves node_ids/element_ids untyped, so the description's Args section carries the burden. It compensates well by explaining that node_ids and element_ids support int, list, or range string, and by labeling group_name as the structure group name. It could add detail on the exact range string format, but the coverage is strong given 0% schema description coverage.

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 and resource: 'Remove nodes and/or elements from an existing structure group.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like remove_structure_group (which deletes the whole group) and remove_nodes/remove_elements (which likely remove entities from the model rather than from a group).

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 phrase 'from an existing structure group' implies that this tool is for modifying an existing group's membership rather than creating or deleting a group. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over add_to_structure_group or remove_structure_group, nor does it mention that the group must already exist or that at least one of node_ids/element_ids should be provided.

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