remove_group_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral constraints: explicit confirmation is required, and the group must be non-default. However, it omits details like permission requirements, side effects of removal, or error handling for edge cases (e.g., user not in 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 sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core constraints (confirmation, non-default group) but lacks broader context such as prerequisites, side effects, or error scenarios. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps that could affect correct usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It mentions 'user' and 'group' but does not explicitly describe groupId, userId, or confirm. The phrase 'explicit confirmation' hints at confirm, and 'non-default group' clarifies groupId, but it fails to explain parameter types or relationships, leaving gaps.

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 a user from a non-default group') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_group_user and delete_group by specifying the removal context and the non-default constraint.

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 phrase 'after explicit confirmation' and 'non-default group' provide clear context and prerequisites for use. While it does not name alternative tools explicitly, the context implies when this tool is appropriate, and no obvious alternative exists for this specific operation.

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