external_squads_remove_all_users

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description's 'EVERY' adds a genuine behavioral nuance (full sweep vs. subset), but it says nothing about reversibility, whether the squad itself survives, or authorization needs.

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 front-loaded sentence where the scope qualifier 'EVERY' arrives before the object, with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the one distinction that matters.

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 one-parameter tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and which returns no structured output, the description is minimally sufficient. However, a bulk destructive operation warrants at least a note on irreversibility or post-condition (e.g., squad remains but is emptied), which is absent.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('UUID of the external squad'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (remove), resource (external squad), and scope ('EVERY user'), which cleanly separates it from subset-removal siblings like squads_remove_many_users. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with the near-identical squads_remove_all_users or external_squads_add_all_users, so an agent must infer the difference from the resource noun alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are offered. There is no guidance on when to prefer external_squads_add_all_users or a subset-removal tool, nor any warning about irreversibility before an all-users purge.

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