MarathonUnsetPupilsForModerator

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the concrete consequence: it unlinks pupils from the moderator. It also warns that client-side approval is required, which is useful behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, followed immediately by the destructive warning and approval requirement. There is minor redundancy between 'Unassign' and 'unlinks', but the text contains no filler or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description captures the core effect and approval requirement. However, it does not clarify the selection logic, such as whether bodySelectedPupilsIds is needed when bodyIsSelectAll is false, or what the response/return state looks like. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no param-level guidance, particularly around the relationship between bodyIsSelectAll and bodySelectedPupilsIds, but it is not required to duplicate schema text.

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 states a specific action, 'Unassign', and a clear resource, 'pupils from a marathon moderator'. It reads as a natural-language version of the tool name, and an agent can tell it targets the pupil-to-moderator link. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling MarathonUnsetModeratorsForPupil, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as MarathonSetPupilsForModerator or MarathonUnsetModeratorsForPupil. The action verb implies the purpose, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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