b2_eject_group_member

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, but the description adds significant context: the account is not deleted, the member resets password on next login, and the action is irreversible via API. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying what actually happens.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by key constraints. Efficient and clearly structured.

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?

Covers the behavioral implications (account not deleted, password reset, irreversibility) and the option to change email. All parameters are documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for a destructive tool, though it could explicitly mention the confirm requirement (which is in the schema).

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a note about optionally changing email, but this is also covered in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clearly states the action (eject) and resource (member from a Group), and distinguishes from siblings like b2_create_group_member and b2_list_group_members. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 useful context on the effect (account not deleted, password reset) and a restriction (cannot be re-added via API), giving clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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