expensify_remove_employees

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

The description discloses that this tool writes to Expensify and sets isTerminated, aligning with destructiveHint=true. It also notes that dry-run is currently ON, providing critical behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences: purpose, implementation, and a dry-run warning. No redundant words, and key information 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the action, mechanism, and current dry-run state. It could mention success responses or error conditions, but overall it's fairly complete for this 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds some context (e.g., how removal works via isTerminated) but does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 'Remove members from a policy,' specifying both the action (remove) and the resource (policy members). It explains the internal mechanism (sets isTerminated) and distinguishes from sibling tools like expensify_update_employees.

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 use when you need to remove employees, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., expensify_update_employees). The dry-run note is helpful but not a usage guideline per se.

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