remove_site_role

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies access permissions.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with no unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste space on redundant or vague phrasing.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gap is the lack of behavioral context for a destructive operation. However, for a tool with 2 simple parameters and output schema support, the description is minimally adequate but leaves important usage and error-handling details unspecified.

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%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information—it doesn't explain what format 'site_url' should be in, whether 'user_email' must be validated, or what happens if parameters are invalid. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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') and the target ('a user's access to a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'remove_site' or 'remove_blocked_url', which also perform removal operations on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the user must already have access), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_site_roles' or 'get_site_roles' from the sibling list.

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