移除活动成员

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Remove' aligns with that. The description adds the return value ('success returns operation result'), but does not detail side effects (e.g., irreversible nature, impact on grades, or authorization requirements). With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is neatly structured and the return note is brief. No extraneous text. The only minor flaw is the slightly awkward 'studentUids/studentUid' notation, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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 no output schema, the description does explain the return value generically as 'operation result,' which is vague. It does not mention error cases, prerequisites, or whether the action is reversible, but the destructive hint covers some of this. The parameter list compensates for the empty schema, but the overall guidance is minimal for a deletion tool of this scope.

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?

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description carries the full burden of documenting parameters. It lists courseId, activityId, and studentUids/studentUid with brief explanations, including note that studentUids can be a list or single UID. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, though it lacks explicit types or required flags.

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 tool's function: 'Remove students from LMS activity.' This is a specific verb+resource formulation that distinguishes it from siblings like classin_add_activity_student (which adds students) and classin_delete_activity (which removes the entire activity). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through its main sentence—one should use this tool when removing students from an activity. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like classin_add_activity_student for the reverse operation. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusionary or alternative guidance.

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