Remove up to 1,000 users from a group by passing their IDs; if any ID is invalid, the entire operation fails.
Remove 1–1000 users from a group. Provide an array of user IDs. All-or-nothing: if any user ID is invalid, the entire operation fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ID of the group. | |
| group_id | Yes | A unique identifier for a group. | |
| user_ids | No | IDs of the users to be deleted from the group. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious trait: all-or-nothing atomicity, where one invalid user ID fails the whole batch. It still omits permission requirements and what the caller gets back, but the atomicity disclosure is substantive.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero padding; the scope, input shape, and failure semantics each earn their place.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scale limits and failure behavior, which are the key operational facts. Missing authorization/permission guidance and post-delete state leaves a small gap.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint not present in the schema: the 1-1000 element bound on the user_ids array. It does not resolve the 'id' vs 'group_id' ambiguity in the schema, which is a residual gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove ... users from a group'), plus a batch scope (1-1000). It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling add_group_users and from single-user removal tools.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation itself (removing memberships from a group), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as group existence or required scopes, and no routing to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.