kaiten_remove_sd_org_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove a user' and does not describe side effects, reversibility, permissions required, idempotency, or what happens if the user is not in the organization. For a potentially destructive removal operation, this is a meaningful 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the core action and target resource are immediately clear.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate for invocation. However, given the large sibling set and lack of annotations/output schema, it would benefit from usage guidance and behavioral context such as what the removal affects or how it relates to batch removal.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents user_id and organization_id adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('a user from a Service Desk organization'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling membership-removal tools like kaiten_remove_space_user or kaiten_remove_group_user beyond the 'Service Desk organization' qualifier.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_batch_remove_sd_org_users or kaiten_remove_space_user. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, not stated explicitly, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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