learningsuite_remove_courses_from_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, such as whether the courses themselves are deleted, whether the operation is idempotent, or if specific permissions are required. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is exceptionally concise and gets straight to the point. The structure earns a high score purely on efficiency, even though it lacks contextual depth.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller can expect (e.g., response body, success/failure behavior, idempotency). It provides none of this. Additionally, there is no mention of relationships to other group operations (e.g., when to use remove vs. add). For a mutation tool with minimal annotations, this is 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% (groupId and courseIds are described in the schema). The description does not add any semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. It simply restates that courses are removed from a group, which the parameter meanings already imply. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Remove'), the object ('courses'), and the scope ('from a group'). It is explicitly distinguished from sibling tools like learningsuite_add_courses_to_group (the opposite operation) and learningsuite_get_group_courses (read operation). Despite being terse, it unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_courses_to_group or get_group_courses. No context is provided about prerequisites (e.g., group existence) or when removal is appropriate. The description is purely a statement of action with no usage recommendations.

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