projects_remove_team_memberTake an employee off a project's team. Reversible: add them back with projects_add_team_member. Their logged time is KEPT and still counts on the project, so this does not undo any work - it frees their allocated capacity from this project going forward. Their pricing group assignment goes with them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_member_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations (which only mark it destructive/non-read-only) by clarifying the exact behavioral consequences: logged time is kept and still counts, no work is undone, only future allocated capacity is freed, and the pricing group assignment leaves with the employee. This proactively addresses likely misconceptions about a removal operation.
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?
Three focused sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of valuable context (reversibility, time preservation, capacity/pricing side effects). Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior and side effects well. The annotations already cover the read/destructive profile. The only notable omissions are the exact nature of team_member_id and any return/error behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It implies the single team_member_id is the employee to remove, but it does not clarify whether this is a global employee ID or a project-membership ID, nor how the project is identified given only one parameter. The description provides partial compensation but leaves an important gap.
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 opens with a clear, specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Take an employee off a project's team.' It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning the inverse operation (projects_add_team_member) and by describing what the action does not undo (logged time). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 establishes clear context: use this when you want to remove an employee from a project team and free their future capacity. It also references the alternative for reversal (projects_add_team_member). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from projects_update_team_member, so it falls short of a full when/when-not distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.