Remove one member from a Scaleway IAM Group

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the immediate loss of permissions, the need for confirm=true, and the refusal to operate on Scaleway-managed or non-editable groups. These are critical behavior details not implied by destructiveHint alone.

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 three focused sentences: the action, the mandatory confirmation, and the high-impact consequences and constraints. Every sentence carries essential information with no filler.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the most critical risks: permission loss, confirmation requirement, and limitations on editable groups. It could be slightly more complete by specifying whether one of user_id/application_id is mandatory or both are allowed together, but overall it is sufficient for safe 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight clarity by noting 'one User and/or one Application,' but it does not explain the exact relationship between user_id and application_id (e.g., whether exactly one must be provided) or add value beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 begins with 'Remove one User and/or one Application from a Group,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_group_member or set_group_members. The title also reinforces the single-member removal scope.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (removing a single member) and highlights the requirement for confirm=true. It also provides cautionary guidance about checking whether the member relies solely on this group's permissions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., use set_group_members to replace all members).

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