Bulk Remove Project Memberships

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

The description discloses that the action is permanent ('cannot be undone' twice), the 1000-party limit with truncation, scope constraints (reference users only), and the HTTP method and endpoint. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations which already indicate destructive and idempotent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is reasonably concise, though the repetition of 'cannot be undone' is slightly redundant. Each sentence adds useful information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk deletion with limits), the description covers most aspects: purpose, limitations, scope, permanence, and required parameters. It lacks details on error handling or response format, but the annotations and schema fill some gaps.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that party_ids are limited to 1000 and that only the first 1000 are processed. It also reiterates that required parameters are company_id, project_id, and party_ids. While schema coverage is 100%, the truncation detail adds value.

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 tool removes project memberships for multiple parties, specifies it is for reference users only, and distinguishes it from other bulk operations by explicitly stating what it cannot do (remove users with login or vendors). The verb 'Remove' and resource 'Project Memberships' are precise.

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 explicit when-not-to-use guidance: only for reference users, not for users with login or vendors. It also mentions the 1000-party limit and truncation behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those other cases.

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