github_orgs_remove_outside_collaborator

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

The description implies a destructive removal action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., revoking repository access, whether it's reversible) and required permissions. Since no annotations are present, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency, which it fails to provide beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence, no unnecessary words, and directly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no output schema and two required parameters, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context like authentication needs, whether the removal is from all repositories, and potential side effects. For a simple removal, more context on prerequisites and impact is necessary.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions 'org' and 'username', which are merely the parameter names. The tool description adds no further parameter details. Per the rule, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3, even though the schema descriptions are minimal.

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: 'Remove outside collaborator from an organization'. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from related sibling tools like 'github_orgs_convert_member_to_outside_collaborator' or 'github_orgs_remove_member', missing a chance to clarify the target role.

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., removing a member, converting a member). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing admin permissions or that the user must be an outside collaborator. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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