modal_env_members_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious action ('remove a member') and offers no insight into side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. The qualifier 'restricted' adds slight context but does not reveal any behavioral traits.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and free of fluff. It fully captures the primary purpose of the tool without wasting words.

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 removal operation with fully described parameters, the description provides a minimal viable understanding. However, it lacks any elaboration on edge cases, return values, or prerequisites, which would be beneficial especially without annotations or an output schema.

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 100%, with each parameter (member, environment, serviceUser) already described. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('remove') and resource ('member from a restricted Environment'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like list and update. It is concise and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., members_update for changing roles, members_list for inspection). The description simply states the action without contextual cues or exclusions.

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