remove_customers_from_service_desk

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (revoke access) which implies modification. However, it does not disclose if the operation is reversible, if authorization is required, or potential side effects (e.g., impact on active requests). The presence of an output schema means return format is not needed, but behavioral traits beyond the basic action are lacking.

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 concise with two sentences plus bullet-like args. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the args section could be more structured (e.g., using a table). Overall, it is efficient and clear.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (one required, two optional alternatives) and an output schema, the description covers the key information: how to specify customers by platform. However, it lacks operational context such as batch processing limits, error conditions, or whether the operation affects only specified customers or all. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: service_desk_id as numeric ID, usernames as comma-separated for Server/DC, account_ids as comma-separated for Cloud, and implies that at least one of the optional parameters is needed. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 'Revoke customer access from a service desk,' specifying the action, target, and resource. It distinguishes between usernames for Server/DC and account_ids for Cloud, which is explicit and unambigsuous. Among siblings like add_customers_to_service_desk and remove_organization_from_service_desk, the purpose is uniquely identified.

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 guidance on when to use usernames vs account_ids based on deployment type (Server/DC vs Cloud). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar removal tools like remove_organization_from_service_desk or remove_request_participants, nor does it mention prerequisites or permissions.

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