projects_unassign_pricing_groupTake a project team member off their billing rate group without removing them from the project. They then have no rate, so their hours bill at 0 on Time / Time&Material projects until they are assigned a group again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| employee_id | Yes | employees.id of a project team member. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: after unassignment the member has no rate, hours bill at 0 on Time / Time&Material projects, and the effect lasts until reassignment. This goes beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations and helps the agent understand consequences.
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?
Two tightly worded sentences: the first states the action and key exclusion, the second states the financial consequence. Every clause earns its place, and the most important distinction is front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description explains the effect, the billing implication, and the path to reversal. Minor missing context includes an explicit pointer to the assign sibling tool, but overall the agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is only 50%: employee_id is documented, but project_id has no description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining either parameter or their relationship. It mentions the project context generally but adds no concrete parameter meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: it takes a project team member off their billing rate group, and immediately clarifies it does not remove them from the project. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool projects_remove_team_member without requiring the agent to compare schemas.
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 makes the intended use clear: unassign a member from a pricing group while keeping them on the project. It includes an implicit when-not condition ('without removing them from the project') but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit.
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.