superset_group_remove_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation ('Remove users') and the partial-scope guarantee ('without removing the rest'), but does not mention permissions, error handling for nonexistent users or groups, idempotence, or other side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation with no safety annotations.

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 first sentence states the core function, and the Args block cleanly lists parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description gives the essential intent and partial-scope behavior. However, it omits important context such as prerequisite conditions, failure semantics, and authentication/authorization requirements. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.

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?

The Args block adds minimal but useful semantics: user_ids is described as 'List of user IDs to remove from the group,' which goes beyond the raw schema. However, group_id is just restated as 'Group ID' with no additional context, and schema coverage is essentially zero, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 begins with a specific action: 'Remove users from a group without removing the rest.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like group_remove_roles or group_add_users by focusing on users rather than roles and by emphasizing partial removal.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The phrase 'without removing the rest' implies targeted partial removal, but there is no direct comparison to related tools like group_add_users or group_remove_roles, and no conditions for when this tool should or should not be used.

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