remove_from_module

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe mutation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the name, such as whether removing also deletes the variables themselves, whether the module must exist, or any side effects on dependent components. The word 'remove' could ambiguously imply deleting variables, which is not clarified.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds meaning. Efficiently communicates the core function.

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 is relatively simple (remove members from an existing module), and the output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, the description omits important context such as whether the removed variables are deleted or just unlinked, and whether there are any prerequisites or side effects. This gap prevents a higher score.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (members, model_id, module_name, workspace_id), so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('remove'), identifies the resource ('existing module'), and specifies the object ('variables'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_to_module and delete_module, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies usage: when you want to remove variables from a module, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit context for when to use this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as the module existing or the variables being present.

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