remove_class_staff

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It discloses that this is a write operation requiring PS_ENABLE_WRITES, explains the concurrency risk and the serialization behavior, details exactly what happens when removing by user_ids vs role, and explicitly states that 'Everyone else on the class is preserved.' It also recommends verifying with a fresh get_class read, making side effects transparent.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence earns its place. The structure front-loads the core action, then a critical SAFETY warning, then usage semantics, then parameter details. There is no filler or repeated information. The layout is clean and scannable, with the warning prominently placed to prevent misuse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and high behavioural risk, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, safety constraints, operational steps, parameter semantics, and even mentions verifying results. The output schema existence means return values need not be explained, and nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains section_id as the class/section ID from list_classes, clarifies that user_ids is optional if role is given, and enumerates the role values (TEACHER, ASSISTANT, ROOM_PARENT) with an example. This adds meaning far beyond the bare JSON schema.

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 a clear resource ('staff or room parents from a class'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like add_class_staff. It also specifies the class context and the two removal modes, so an agent can tell what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it warns against parallel calls with add_class_staff, explains when to use user_ids versus role, clarifies that role removes all holders of that role, and even gives a strategy for school-wide clearing via list_classes. This goes far beyond basic 'when to use' and includes concrete operational directives.

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