Remove a user from a team

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond those flags: it requires confirm=true and explicitly scopes the destruction by noting that login and personally owned websites remain intact. This is genuinely useful context for an agent invoking 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?

The key behavioral information is front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact Args/Returns block. There is no filler, though the Args section does duplicate what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's low complexity, rich input schema, and annotations, the description covers all critical call-time concerns: the confirmation requirement, the precise side effects, and the expected return shape. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external documentation.

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%, so the input schema already documents team_id, user_id, and the confirm constraint. The description's Args block mostly restates the schema without adding new semantic meaning, earning the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Remove a member from a team', and clarifies the exact scope by stating that the user's login and personally owned websites are unaffected while access to shared team websites is lost. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_user or delete_team.

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 implies when to use the tool—when the goal is to revoke a user's access to a team's shared websites—and clarifies what it does not do, such as deleting the user's login or personal websites. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_team_user for role changes or delete_team for removing the entire team.

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