b2_eject_group_member

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

Beyond annotations already marking the call destructive, the description reveals meaningful consequences: the account is not deleted, the member resets their password at next login, and the change is irreversible through the API. The 'cannot be re-added via API' warning is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action and then add high-value caveats: no account deletion, password reset, optional email change, and API re-add restriction. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs to know: outcome scope, side effects, optional behavior, and irreversibility. Combined with comprehensive parameter schemas and annotations, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 every parameter, including the meaning and constraints for email, confirm, groupId, adminAccountId, and memberAccountId. The description adds only the small clarification that email change is optional on eject, which does not lift it above the baseline.

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, 'Eject a member from a Group,' and immediately clarifies the scope by stating the account is NOT deleted, only removed. This distinguishes the operation from general account deletion and from the sibling create/list group member tools.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this to remove a group member, with the caveat that the saved account remains and the member must reset their password. It also warns that re-adding via API is impossible, giving an implicit when-not-to-use signal, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as b2_create_group_member.

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