Unassign role

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the write-gate requirement, the dry-run fallback, and the cross-field validation that rejects the call when userName/roleName don't match their OIDs. It leaves out what happens if the user isn't currently assigned that role (error vs. no-op) and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter contract, then the write gate — no filler. The trailing sentence about naming people by display names is slightly oblique for a tool whose own parameters demand midPoint names, costing a bit of clarity.

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, the description covers the safety-relevant behavior (gate, dry-run, mismatch refusal) and the return values are covered by the output schema. Only the not-assigned edge case and idempotency are unaddressed.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that these are midPoint unique names rather than display names, and why both names and OIDs are required (the call is refused on mismatch so the human confirmer sees the right names). That rationale is not in the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove a user's assignment to a role") that an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling assign_role. The scope — one user, one role — is unambiguous without opening 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?

It states the write-gate precondition and the fallback behavior (dry-run preview when the gate is absent), which tells the agent when the call will actually mutate state. It doesn't explicitly name assign_role as the inverse or spell out when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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