conn_group_remove_scope

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

There are no runtime annotations to indicate safety or side effects. The description says 'Quita un directorio' implying destructive removal from the group, but it does not disclose whether the directory is deleted from the underlying data model, whether cascading effects occur, whether confirmation is required, or what happens if the scope is not currently assigned to the group.

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, compact sentence in Spanish that directly states the operation and condition. No filler or redundant repetition, and the key behavioral detail (current-directory default) is included.

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 description is concise but for a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain behavioral impact (e.g., does removal break group attrs? What if scope doesn't exist?), nor cover consequences, errors, or return states. There is no characterization of the group object being modified or the optionality of the scope beyond default. Missing context about precise meaning of 'directorio'. For a parameter set of 2, this is minimal.

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 already documents both parameters (group name and scope path) with high coverage. The description adds a useful behavioral note: if scope is omitted, the current directory is used. This adds understanding beyond the dry schema, though no additional edge constraints, defaults, or value formats are given.

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 identifies the action ('Quita' - removes) and the target resource (a directory/scope from a group), and the tool name distinguishes this from sibling tools like conn_group_delete (which removes the entire group).

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 states what it does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., conn_group_delete for deleting whole groups, conn_group_add_scope for adding scopes). No edge cases, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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