squads_remove_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') which implies mutation, but doesn't describe what this operation entails (e.g., whether users lose access to squad resources, if removal is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens if users are in multiple squads). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear schema documentation, and the information is front-loaded with the essential action and target.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, error conditions), what side effects occur (e.g., notification to removed users, impact on their permissions), or operational constraints (rate limits, authentication requirements). Given the complexity of user management operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (squadUuid and userUuids). This meets the baseline expectation when schema documentation is complete, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints.

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 the action ('Remove users') and target resource ('from an internal squad'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'squads_add_users' by specifying removal rather than addition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other user removal tools like 'users_delete', which might cause some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing squad admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk user deletion vs. removal from a specific squad), or direct alternatives like 'users_delete' for complete user removal versus just squad membership removal.

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