superset_group_remove_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—preserving other roles—but does not mention permissions, error conditions (e.g., nonexistent group or role), or side effects beyond the direct removal. This is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise: one main sentence plus a brief Args list. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure front-loads the purpose and then cleanly lists parameters.

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?

The tool has a simple signature (2 params, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return handling is covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks any prerequisites, side effects, or error behavior, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool. It is minimally complete for a basic select-remove operation but not rich enough for robust decision-making.

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 lists 'group_id: Group ID' and 'role_ids: List of role IDs to remove', which essentially restates the schema types and names. The only added semantic is 'to remove' for role_ids, which is minimal. It does not clarify requirements like whether roles must already be assigned or behavior for invalid IDs.

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 clearly states the action 'Remove roles from a group' and specifies the scope 'without removing the rest', distinguishing it from a full role replacement or clearing. This verb+resource+scope structure makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like superset_group_add_roles.

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 'without removing the rest' implies the intended use case (selective role removal) and sets a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use group_update or bulk_user_role_remove instead. The guidance is implicit but clear enough for a simple operation.

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