squads_remove_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add an important trait: the operation is asynchronous and returns 202. However, it does not disclose what happens after acceptance, whether the removal is idempotent, or any side effects/requirements, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence packs the action, scope, batch limit, and async behavior with no filler. The key constraint is front-loaded and every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: target squad, specific users, batch limit, and the async 202 behavior. It is slightly thin on post-acceptance semantics and alternative-tool routing, but enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents squadUuid and userIds. The description adds the batch size constraint of 1-1000, which reinforces the schema's minItems/maxItems, but provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 states a specific action and resource: removing specific users from an internal squad, which immediately distinguishes it from squad-wide operations like squads_remove_all_users and from external squads. The verb 'Remove' plus the targeted resource make the tool's 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 phrase 'specific users' and the 1-1000 per-call cap clearly identify when this tool is appropriate for targeted removals, while the sibling names provide the contrast for add or remove-all cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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