remove_team_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the action as removal (destructive), but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error handling. For a potentially destructive action, more behavioral context is needed.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose and HTTP endpoint, followed by clear parameter guidance. Every sentence is necessary, with no extraneous words.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no required params), the description covers the essential information. However, it omits details like response format, success/error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., authorization). The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need for return value documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the format of user_id ('user_...') and that email is the team member's email. However, it does not provide constraints or examples for email, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the team' and gives the HTTP endpoint, making the action and resource clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_team_members by specifying removal, but does not explicitly differentiate from other removal tools like remove_billing_group_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 description provides usage guidance by stating 'Provide exactly one of user_id or email.', but lacks explicit direction on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_organization_group_members). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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