Remove user permission level

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — that removal reverts the user to their default level rather than leaving them level-less — which is not derivable from the structured fields. It still does not say what happens if no custom level exists or what the call returns.

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?

A single sentence with the operation front-loaded and the side effect trailing; no filler, no restatement of the title beyond what is needed.

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 two-parameter, destructive, idempotent mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential effect and annotations cover safety. However, the absence of any routing guidance versus bot_levels_add and the silence on the channel parameter leave real gaps for an agent operating among ~100 siblings.

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%, with both username and channel fully documented in the schema (including the channel fallback to SE_CHANNEL_ID). The description only alludes to the 'user' being acted on and never mentions channel scoping, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — the correct baseline here is 3.

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?

Specific verb (Remove) plus resource (a user's custom bot permission level), which cleanly separates it from siblings bot_levels_add and bot_levels_list without needing to name them. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it misses the top mark, but an agent can identify the operation unambiguously.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no distinction from bot_levels_add (which presumably sets the very level this tool removes), and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the username must already hold a custom level. The reader is left to infer usage from the verb alone.

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