superset_bulk_user_role_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: that omitting user_ids removes the role from ALL users who have it, that exclude_admin defaults to True to protect admins, and that confirm must be True to apply, with False as a dry-run. This provides meaningful safety and scope context beyond the basic 'remove' action, though it stops short of warning about irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 well-structured. The one-line summary is followed by a clean Args list. Every element provides necessary information without fluff, and the dry-run/confirm distinction is communicated in two short lines.

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?

Given this is a bulk operation with a potentially sweeping effect (all users), the description covers the most critical context: the all-users behavior, admin exclusion, and the dry-run safeguard. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it does not address required permissions or whether the operation is reversible, which are notable gaps for a destructive bulk action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining each parameter: role_id (what to remove), user_ids (explicit list or None to mean all), exclude_admin (skip admins), and confirm (apply vs. dry-run). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's raw types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Remove a role from multiple users', which is a specific verb (Remove), resource (role), and scope (from multiple users). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_bulk_user_role_add and superset_role_delete, covering both the operation type and the multi-user target.

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 description explains the core usage semantics: how user_ids (explicit list vs. all users), exclude_admin (default skip), and confirm (dry-run vs. apply) affect behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the parameter-level guidance is strong enough to infer when to use this tool over a single-user role removal.

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