ad_remove_group_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers only the [WRITE] tag. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether group membership removal revokes access immediately, whether a confirmation token is mandatory, or what dry_run does — all critical for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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 short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. The write tag is front-loaded, which is good structure, but the body is too thin to earn a higher score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema documentation the description should cover confirmation/dry-run behavior and side effects. Those gaps make it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only implicitly covers the two required ones (group, members). The semantics of dry_run, confirmation_token, and correlation_id — the parameters that most affect safe invocation — are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Remover membro(s) de um grupo") and the bracketed tags [Groups & Members] [WRITE] classify the operation, which separates it from ad_add_group_member and the read-only list tools. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus ad_add_group_member, ad_list_group_members, or ad_get_nested_group_membership, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The presence of dry_run and confirmation_token parameters suggests a confirmation-gated workflow, but the description never tells the agent to use it.

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