n8n_remove_project_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, the description fails to clarify side effects (e.g., what happens to the user's workflows, whether the action is reversible, or if data is deleted vs access revoked).

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the '[UNIFIED] [Enterprise]' prefix tags, while informative, slightly clutter the opening without adding semantic value to the operation itself.

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 three required parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter formats (especially 'site'), expected behavior, or return values, leaving the agent to guess critical invocation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly references 'user' and 'project' mapping to user_id and project_id, but completely omits explanation of the 'site' parameter (critical for multi-tenant n8n instances), leaving significant ambiguity.

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 provides a specific verb ('Remove') and clear resource ('a user from a project'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'n8n_add_project_users' (inverse operation) and 'n8n_change_project_user_role' (modification vs removal).

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 includes a clear prerequisite ('Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license'), which constrains when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., mentioning 'n8n_add_project_users' for re-adding users) or when not to use this tool.

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