Contract Testing: Admin Remove User from Team

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds only 'admin' context but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the user must be in the team, if the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 very short: a single sentence plus a toolset label and parameter list. No wasted words, but it could benefit from a brief note on return value or behavior. Still, it is efficiently structured for quick scanning.

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 simple tool with two parameters, annotations covering destructive/idempotent, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not hint at the return value (e.g., success/failure) or error conditions. Given the low complexity, a 3 is reasonable.

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 coverage is 100% and the description repeats the same parameter names and descriptions as the schema. No additional semantics or format details are provided beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific user from a team (admin)', with a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('user from team'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like admin_delete_user (removes user entirely) and admin_set_team_users (bulk operation).

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 notes the toolset is 'Admin' and the action is removing a user from a team, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like admin_delete_user or admin_patch_team_users. Usage is implied but not compared to siblings.

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