npm_org_member_remove

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the specific side effect (team memberships are also removed) and the confirm guard requirement. This adds critical behavioral context about what gets destroyed, which is valuable for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the critical side effect and requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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, the description is complete: it states the action, the side effect, the confirm guard, and the irreversible cascade. It gives enough context to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described clearly (org, user, confirm). The description adds rationale for the confirm parameter but does not introduce new semantic meaning for the org and user parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource context: 'Remove a user from an org' and clearly distinguishes it from team-level tools by noting 'Their team memberships in that org are also removed.' This differentiates it from siblings like npm_team_member_remove and npm_org_member_set.

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 clear context for when to use it (removing a user from an org entirely) and warns about the cascading effect with 'team memberships cascade and cannot be selectively preserved.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient.

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