identity_remove_groups_from_organization

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deprecation status, replacement endpoint, access-policy roles, and a note about the deprecated 'failed' response field. It does not explain the side effects of removing groups or what notifyUsersInGroups does, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 purpose and deprecation are front-loaded, but the text repeats 'DEPRECATED', contains malformed Markdown, and awkwardly concatenates the replacement API note with the response-field deprecation note. The access-policy table is useful, but the overall structure is cluttered rather than concise.

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 deprecated destructive tool, the description supplies the replacement path, access roles, endpoint, and response-field deprecation note. The input schema covers parameters fully and annotations cover safety traits; missing return-value details are minor because no output schema exists and the tool is deprecated.

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%, so the schema already documents orgId and the nested body. The description only echoes the orgId path via the endpoint and does not add meaning for body.ids or body.notifyUsersInGroups, 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 and resource: 'Remove Groups From Organization' and gives the DELETE endpoint. It does not name a sibling MCP tool as the alternative, but the deprecation warning and replacement API path make the purpose distinguishable enough.

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?

It explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and directs callers to use '/cloudapi/1.0.0/groups' instead, which is a strong when-not-to-use signal. The access policy table also clarifies who may use it, though the alternative is an API path rather than a sibling tool name.

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