lokalise_delete_team_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It conveys the destructive action (removes) and required parameters, but lacks details on irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects beyond a success message.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each adding value. No fluff, and the core action 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 delete-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, required params, and return value. Slight improvement could detail the success message format, but overall sufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for both teamId and userId. The description only restates that they are required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Removes a user from a Lokalise team' with specific verb and resource, and adds use cases like 'remove members, clean up permissions, or manage team structure'. It is distinct from sibling tools such as get_team_user, update_team_user, or remove_contributor.

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 provides clear context for use (removing members, cleaning up permissions, managing team structure) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., update_team_user for role changes).

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