removeUserVerification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the precondition ('currently verified'), the action scope, and the success return value ('Returns True on success'), but does not describe failure behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond the removal itself.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key scope condition and return value. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, precondition, and success return value, which is largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of error or failure behavior, which is not covered by annotations either.

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?

The schema describes user_id as 'Unique identifier of the target user' with 100% coverage, so the parameter is already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but it does not need to given the schema coverage and single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('removes verification from a user') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like removeChatVerification and verifyUser. The scope ('on behalf of the organization represented by the bot') adds useful precision.

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 implies when to use this tool: for a user who is currently verified and in the organization context of the bot. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like verifyUser or removeChatVerification, nor does it state when this tool should not be used.

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