remove_request_participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It fails to disclose effects like immediate removal, reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects, leaving the agent with minimal insight.

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 relatively concise with a clear 'Args' section. It could be more front-loaded, but every sentence adds value without waste.

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 an output schema (not shown), the description partially covers inputs but omits return values, error conditions, and behavioral context like whether removal is immediate or requires permissions. For a removal operation with 3 parameters, more completeness is needed.

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%, but the description adds essential meaning: it explains the issue_id_or_key format with an example ('X000') and clarifies that usernames are for Server/DC while account_ids are for Cloud, which is not in 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Remove participants from a customer request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_request_participants', which performs the opposite operation.

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 when to use alternative parameters (usernames for Server/DC, account_ids for Cloud) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_request_participants' or other removal tools.

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