n8n: Remove project user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this is a risky mutation. The description adds the license prerequisite, which is real value beyond the annotations, but does not say whether the user keeps access elsewhere, what happens to their project assets, or whether the removal can be undone.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording; the action comes before the licensing caveat. The bracketed [UNIFIED]/[Enterprise] prefixes are tag noise but cost little.

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, non-idempotent mutation with three fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the definition is thin. An agent can infer intent but not what the parameters should contain or what side effects follow the call.

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 0%, so all three parameters (site, project_id, user_id) are undocumented in structured fields. The description compensates with nothing — it does not clarify identifier formats, whether site is a hostname or alias, or how project_id relates to user_id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: removing a user from a project, which is clearly distinct from adding users or changing a role in the sibling list. It implicitly signals membership removal rather than account deletion, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Provides one concrete prerequisite — an n8n Enterprise/Pro license — which is genuinely useful gating information. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as changing a user's role or transferring their workflows before removal.

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