Contract Testing: Admin Remove User from Team

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the auth context '(admin)' and clarifies the scope is team membership rather than user deletion, but it does not disclose further side effects, reversibility, or error behavior.

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 operation sentence is front-loaded and the description is compact. The parameter block and 'Toolset: Admin' line repeat information already available from the schema and title, so not every piece truly earns its place, but there is no fluff.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and clear destructive/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to identify required UUIDs and the operation. It lacks guidance on side effects, return value, or failure modes, but these are less critical for such a simple admin 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 fully documents teamId and userId as UUIDs. The description's Parameters section merely repeats the schema and adds no additional meaning, constraints, or relationships between the parameters.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a specific user from a team', which clearly identifies the operation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling admin tools like delete_user or set_team_users, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Aside from the 'Toolset: Admin' label, the description provides no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With many similar admin user/team siblings, an agent is not told when to prefer this tool over removing a role, deleting a user, or bulk-setting team members.

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