delete_user_from_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The warning 'DESTRUCTIVE' indicates a dangerous action, but it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the removal affects the user's other group memberships, if it is reversible, or what happens to associated data). More behavioral context is needed for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a warning. The most critical information (destructiveness) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool is destructive and lacks an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist in group), or post-condition state. A more complete description would improve safety and the agent's understanding.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so 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: 'Removes an existing user from a group' with a specific resource (user and group) and verb. It also includes a destructiveness warning, which differentiates it from the sibling 'add_user_to_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 advises 'Confirm with user before calling', but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch removal or other group management tools. No comparisons or conditions are provided.

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