bitrix_remove_project_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that confirm=true is required, but does not mention that removal is destructive/irreversible, what confirmation gate behavior occurs when confirm=false, or whether groupId or project must be supplied to identify the target project.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. However, its brevity comes at the cost of important usage context, so it is concise but slightly under-specified.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and the semantic ambiguity around groupId/project selection, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the project, what happens if neither groupId nor project is provided, or what side effects occur on member removal.

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 confirm, groupId, project, and userIds. The description adds only the confirm=true requirement, which is also partially in the schema, so it provides minimal additional semantic value beyond the high-coverage baseline.

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 ('удалить участников') and the resource ('из проекта (воркгруппы)'). It also names Bitrix24, and the verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, update, and list project members.

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 only usage guidance is 'Требует confirm=true', which is an operational requirement, not a when-to-use instruction. The description does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like bitrix_update_project_member_role or bitrix_add_project_members, nor does it mention the need to specify groupId or project.

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