modx_remove_user_from_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the operation. It says nothing about whether the removal is reversible, what permissions are required, whether dependent resource-group access tied to the group is also revoked, or what the response contains. For a mutating membership tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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 wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though the terseness contributes to the informational gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is simple – two required numeric parameters, fully documented in the schema, no nested objects, no output schema needed. However, with no annotations and a mutation of group membership, the description should still convey reversibility and permission context; it leaves those unstated.

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% – both 'user' and 'usergroup' are documented as numeric IDs in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither clarifies ID format (e.g., username vs numeric ID) nor edge cases such as a user not in the group.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a user from a user group'), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as modx_add_user_to_group, modx_update_group_member, or modx_remove_resource_from_group, which the name alone only partially resolves.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to the inverse tool (modx_add_user_to_group) for re-adding a member. The agent must infer that this applies to membership management of an existing group from the tool name alone.

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