remove_user_user_group

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

Goes far beyond the annotations: discloses permanence ('no undo from this server'), server-side auth injection, throttling under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retry on 429/5xx, expected success codes (200/204 with usually empty body), and a full error-to-meaning mapping (401/403/404/422). No contradiction with destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: the destructive warning and endpoint headline come first, followed by a one-line summary and clearly labeled Behavior/Returns/Use-when sections. Every sentence carries distinct value (permanence, auth, throttling, error semantics, usage conditions) 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?

For a destructive 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers return values and error payloads, auth requirements, rate-limit behavior, permanence caveats, and alternative routing. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it and what to expect.

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 schema already documents both parameters (id as user group identifier, uid as user id or encoded email). The description's URL path hints at the parameter roles, but it adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Remove a user from a user group') and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint DELETE /v2/user_groups/{id}/users/{uid}. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the related User groups tools (add_user_user_group, deletes_user_group, etc.) and contrasting with update/unenroll tools.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' guidance: only after the user confirms removal. It also states when NOT to use it ('To merely revoke access or deactivate, use the matching 🟡 update or unenroll tool instead'), giving the agent a concrete decision rule against alternatives.

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