Remove Enrollment

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

destructiveHint already flags the risk, but the description goes further by explicitly warning that the delete task is permanent and that the other two modes are reversible. This is the most important behavioral distinction an agent needs before making a destructive call. It doesn't disclose side effects or cascading changes, but for this API surface the permanence warning is the key addition.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the one safety-critical clarification (permanence). No filler or redundancy anywhere.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision logic: which enum choice is permanent and which are reversible. It doesn't explain side effects beyond permanence or when to prefer conclude over deactivate, but the high schema coverage compensates for missing parameter detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents course_id, enrollment_id, and task. The description adds operational nuance around task (permanent vs. reversible) but doesn't extend parameter meaning per se. Baseline of 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 uses a clear verb–object pair ('remove or conclude an enrollment from a course') and adds the critical nuance that 'delete' is permanent while 'conclude' and 'deactivate' are reversible. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling enrollment tools like enroll_user or list_enrollments, so it isn't a 5, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives an agent the key decision cue: choose delete only when permanence is intended, since conclude and deactivate are reversible. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when the tool should be used over siblings, but for a simple three-mode operation the task-selection guidance is solid.

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