twitter_list_remove_member

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: true, but the description goes further: it details the exact response fields, the meaning of null member_count (not-applied signal), and that non-applied writes return a 422 with a machine-readable reason and are not billed. This is rich behavioral context 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 dense but a bit long (4 sentences) and dives into response details and error semantics. However, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and use case, and every sentence adds value (response interpretation, billing, reversal). Slightly over-specified but still efficient.

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 output schemalint, the description thoroughly covers purpose, response fields, success/failure signals, and billing behavior. It also notes proxy recommendation for writes (in schema) and provides a clear reversal path. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each parameter already described (e.g., list_id and user_id include URL and resolution guidance). The description adds little beyond schema, but the description does mention the dependency on resolving handle to user_id via twitter_user_info, which is implied in schema; 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 the action (remove one account from a Twitter/X List), specifies the required identifiers (numeric list id and user id), and scopes the operation to 'YOUR registered X session owns' a list. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling twitter_list_add_member by naming the reverse 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?

It provides a concrete use case ('prune a curated List, for example dropping accounts that have gone quiet') and explicitly mentions the reverse tool (twitter_list_add_member) for undoing. It also states when the write will not apply (account not a member, list not yours), giving clear guidance on alternative actions.

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