Remove specified social connections from an account group by providing the group ID and connection IDs, keeping grouped accounts organized and current.
Remove social connections from an account group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group ID | |
| connectionIds | Yes | Connection IDs to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known from structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the title: it does not say whether removed connections are deleted or merely unassigned, what happens to IDs not present in the group, or whether the call is atomic or partial-failure. For a destructive operation, that is a meaningful gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail rather than a sign of disciplined editing.
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?
This is a destructive, non-idempotent bulk mutation with two required parameters and no output schema, so the description should carry more of the behavioral load. It does not explain the result of a partial match, error behavior, or what the caller gets back, leaving an agent to guess at the outcome of an irreversible-seeming write.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id as Group ID, connectionIds as the IDs to remove) are described in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether connectionIds can include IDs outside the group or whether the list is order-sensitive, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
A specific verb (remove) and resource (social connections from an account group) make the operation unambiguous, and it is naturally distinguishable from the sibling add_connections_to_group. It does not explicitly name that sibling or any other alternative, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
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 guidance on when to use this versus add_connections_to_group, delete_account_group, or list_connections, and no stated preconditions. The only implied usage comes from the verb itself and the group-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.