Remove A Person From A Group

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description adds concrete behavioral details: the action is permanent, cannot be undone, a repeat call returns 404, and failure modes include 401/403/404 with specific causes. This meaningfully augments the annotation flags, and there is no contradiction.

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 relatively long but packed with valuable details and is generally well-organized. However, there is redundancy ('Confirm the target id...' and 'resolve them with the matching list tool first') and minor grammatical issues like 'the removing the last group id.'

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?

The description covers business rules, prerequisites, permanence, and error statuses. Yet, since there is no output schema, it omits the success return status/body, which is a notable gap for a destructive endpoint. Also, 'Permanently removes the person' could be misread as deleting the person record rather than the group membership.

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 covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about resolving person_id/group_id via list tools and company_id defaulting to config, but it creates ambiguity by listing company_id as required while also stating it defaults when omitted.

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 opens with 'Removes a person from a given group,' using a specific verb and resource. The endpoint DELETE /rest/v1.0/workforce-planning/v2/companies/{company_id}/people/{person_id}/groups/{group_id} confirms the exact action and distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like add_person_to_a_group.

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 explicit guidance to resolve person_id and group_id with list/show tools before calling and warns that removing the last group id is not allowed for assignable resources or non-admin persons. It also notes company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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