remove_class_students

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the write requirement, the serialization safety behavior, the preservation of other classes, and the rule that it won't empty a class. This is far beyond the minimal and gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and constraints.

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?

The description is longer than average but well-organized with a SAFETY section and explicit parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value—requirements, serialization warning, preservation rule, and parameter sources. It is front-loaded with the core action and constraints, though it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 write operation with three required parameters, the description covers the action, prerequisites, safety notes, parameter semantics, and behavioral guarantees. Since an output schema exists, return format is not needed. Nothing crucial is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It does: school_id is the school the class belongs to; section_id comes from list_classes; student_ids come from list_class_students. This adds meaning beyond the bare property names and even provides sourcing guidance, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'Remove specific students from a class' and adds a key constraint: 'student_ids is required: this tool will not empty a class.' This distinguishes it from a general removal tool and clarifies its scope. Though it doesn't name a sibling, it is unambiguous about what it does.

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?

It provides context on when to use: it requires PS_ENABLE_WRITES, warns against parallel writes, and specifies that each student's other classes are preserved. It does not explicitly list alternatives like move_student_to_class or add_class_students, but the wording implies this is for pure removal, not moving. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, so a 4.

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