Remove A User From The Project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds emphasis by stating 'permanently delete' and 'cannot be undone', which is consistent and helpful. It also mentions the required parameters and the API endpoint, providing extra 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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the main action and permanence. It includes some redundant information (e.g., repeating 'permanently removes') and API endpoint details, which slightly reduce conciseness but do not harm clarity.

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 simple action (remove a user) with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its destructive nature, and required parameters. It does not describe return values, but for a delete operation this is often acceptable.

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 already defines and describes both parameters (project_id, id) with 100% coverage. The description merely restates that they are required, adding no new semantic information. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is adequate.

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 a specified user from a project, with specific verb 'removes' and resource 'user from project'. The title and name reinforce this. Although sibling tools like 'bulk_remove_company_users_from_projects' exist, the description's specificity and mention of 'Directory records' provides sufficient clarity.

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 explicitly warns that the action is permanent and cannot be undone, aiding in appropriate use. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but for a simple destructive action, the warning is adequate.

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