remove_group_owner

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive action (remove) and the scope (from a group). While it doesn't detail edge cases like the last owner or error behavior, it transparently communicates the core operation, which is adequate for a simple mutation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter removal operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks some context (e.g., permissions or side effects), but given the low complexity, it does not need extensive elaboration.

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 ('group_id' and 'owner_id') having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove an owner from a group' uses a specific verb (remove) and identifies the resource (owner within a group). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like add_group_owner and remove_group_member by specifying the role being removed.

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?

Usage is implied by the simple verb-resource structure: use when you need to remove an owner from a group. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., owner must exist), or alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the criteria for a 4.

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