Roles: permissions remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: blast radius (every user holding the role loses the permission at once), preservation semantics (other permissions kept), and lenient partial-application behavior (actions the role lacks are ignored). It does not cover reversibility, auth requirements, or error behavior for an unknown entity, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then blast radius, then alternatives and caution - a sensible order. The clause 'Takes one or more actions (default read) on one entity away from a role' partially repeats the opening sentence, a minor redundancy.

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 mutation tool with an output schema absent (so returns need not be explained), full parameter coverage, and annotations carrying the safety flags, the description closes the remaining gaps: what is destroyed, who is affected, and the recommended workflow.

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 all three parameters (role_id, entity, actions) are already documented, including the comma-separated action list and the 'read' default. The description restates the default and 'one entity' scoping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (remove) and resource (entity permissions from a role), and implicitly scopes it against sibling roles_permissions_add. An agent can immediately tell this is the removal counterpart 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?

Explicit instructions: use `roles_permissions_list` first to see current grants, and check with the user before running because it changes/deletes data. Names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it, plus a confirmation prerequisite.

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