kaiten_remove_group_user

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself and does not mention whether removal is permanent, whether the user must already be in the group, what permissions are required, or what the response/result looks like. For a destructive mutation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core operation immediately and clearly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only the bare action stated, the description is incomplete. An agent would not know about side effects, reversibility, error conditions, or whether removal is idempotent. More context is needed for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (group_uid and user_id) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantic detail about parameter formats, relationships, or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and specifies a concrete resource ('a user from a company group'), which clearly conveys the action. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kaiten_add_group_user, kaiten_remove_space_user, and kaiten_remove_card_member by naming the exact scope: company 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as kaiten_add_group_user for adding users or kaiten_list_group_users for viewing membership. It gives no prerequisites, no conditions, and no exclusion criteria.

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