Remove A User From The Project

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: permanence ('cannot be undone'), repeat-call behavior (404), and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). However, it contains an internal contradiction by saying project_id 'defaults to procore_set_config when omitted' while also listing it as required and having it required in the schema, which is a transparency flaw.

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 information-dense and front-loaded, covering preparation, consequences, errors, required parameters, and the API endpoint. The contradictory project_id default sentence is unnecessary and detracts from clarity, but overall the structure is organized.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, it thoroughly covers preparation, irreversibility, repeat-call outcome, error payloads, and required parameters. The missing success response format is a minor gap, and the contradictory project_id default statement is a notable flaw in completeness.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters generically as URL path identifiers, so baseline is 3. The description adds guidance to resolve id with a list tool, but the misleading default claim about project_id undermines the added value and could confuse invocation.

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 a specific action ('Removes a specified user from a project'), clearly defining the verb, resource, and scope. It also provides the Procore API endpoint and Core Directory context, which distinguishes it from related membership tools like add_company_user_to_project or update_project_user.

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 gives concrete pre-call instructions: confirm the target id with the matching show/list tool and resolve id with a list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the procedural guidance is clear and actionable.

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