external_squads_remove_all_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the async behavior ('async 202') and the full destructive scope ('ALL users'), but it does not state reversibility, permission requirements, or downstream impact of emptying the squad.

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?

One compact sentence with the key scope qualifier and async behavior front-loaded. No redundant words or filler.

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-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource, the destructive scope, and the async nature. It would be more complete with a short caution or alternative pointer, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 single parameter squadUuid is fully covered by the schema ('Squad UUID'), so the description does not need to explain it. The description's 'external squad' wording adds slight context by clarifying which type of squad UUID is expected.

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 an unambiguous action ('Remove ALL users') on a specific resource ('external squad') and flags async 202 behavior. The scope word 'ALL' separates it from partial-removal variants, and 'external squad' differentiates it from squads_remove_all_users.

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?

Description gives the operation but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer from the name/siblings (e.g., external_squads_add_all_users, squads_remove_all_users) when this is the right tool, so guidance is only implied.

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