Unenroll User

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered structurally. However, the description adds nothing beyond restating the name: it never says the removal is irreversible, that a confirm gate exists, or what happens to course progress/history when a user is unenrolled. With a destructive mutation, that additional context is exactly what the description should supply.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is good. But for a 6-parameter destructive tool with a nested payload and a confirm gate, this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

Given a destructive mutation with no required parameters, two competing ways to identify the target (flat ids vs payload), a payload_file alternative, a confirm flag, and no output schema, one sentence leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly. The description should at minimum explain the confirm requirement and which parameterization to prefer.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents user_id, course_id, payload, payload_file and confirm. The description adds no meaning, and critically does not resolve the structural ambiguity between the top-level user_id/course_id and the nested payload.user_id/course_id, nor why no parameter is required.

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 and resource ('unenroll a user from a course'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling create_enrollment or explain its relationship to list_enrollments, so it stops short of a 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the inverse tool (create_enrollment), and no note that this is the removal counterpart to enrollment creation. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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