accelo_remove_company_manager

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies this as a removal and explains the relationship_id nuance, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or error behavior for a destructive operation.

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 short, front-loaded, and structured with a clear Args section. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or waste.

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 removal tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: company_id and relationship_id, plus how to get the latter. It could still mention permissions or whether the removal is reversible, but the core operational context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this well for relationship_id by explaining why it is not staff_id and where to obtain it, though company_id is only minimally described as 'Company ID'.

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 verb and resource: remove a manager from a company. It also distinguishes the exact identifier needed, relationship_id rather than staff_id, and points to the sibling tool that supplies it, making the 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool and a prerequisite: get relationship_id from accelo_list_company_managers. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare it against accelo_add_company_manager, but the usage path is clear.

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