openai_remove_project_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly notes that the operation fails if the project is archived, a non-obvious behavioral constraint. It does not describe consequences like return values, but the presence of an output schema likely covers that, so this is a reasonable disclosure for a simple removal operation.

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 concise sentence followed by a structured Args block with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and failure condition, making it easy for an agent to parse and act upon.

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 two-parameter removal tool, the description covers the primary action, the failure condition, and how to source the required IDs. The existence of an output schema likely covers return values, so the description is sufficiently complete without over-explaining.

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 zero description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It clarifies that project_id is the project's ID (pointing to openai_list_projects) and user_id is the member's user ID (pointing to openai_list_project_users). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema fields and guides the agent to obtain valid values.

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 a member from a project' with a specific verb and resource, and the failure condition ('Fails if the project is archived') adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_project_user or update_project_user_role, making the purpose 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?

The Args block references openai_list_projects and openai_list_project_users, providing the prerequisite steps for obtaining the necessary IDs. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to update a role instead of removing), it gives clear context on how to use the tool correctly.

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